Who adopts MIND/FIND in INTERPOL’s fight against international crime and terrorism?

Enders, Walter; Sandler, Todd

doi:10.1007/s11127-011-9839-2

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current paper differs from Enders and Sandler (), which investigated not only the determinants of MIND/FIND adoption, but also what could be done to encourage greater adoption. In the current paper, we ask whether the implementation and use of MIND/FIND technology reduced the amount of transnational terrorism in the implementing countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…FIND allows real‐time online access to INTERPOL databases, while MIND contains a copy of these databases. This offline copy is updated periodically, within 48 hours or less (Enders & Sandler, ). Thus, FIND provides somewhat more up‐to‐date data; however, this advantage is likely to dissipate over time as MIND is updated more regularly.…”

Section: Preliminaries On Interpol and Mind/findmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is particularly true of countries whose MIND/FIND linkage was externally funded—for example, some Caribbean and African countries. So, possessing MIND/FIND is no guarantee that it will be applied to border or other searches (Enders & Sandler, ). In March 2014, this was made abundantly clear when two passengers boarded Malaysian Airlines flight 370 with stolen passports and were not screened by Malaysia, a FIND country since June 2007.…”

Section: Preliminaries On Interpol and Mind/findmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the treatment and outcome variables, other covariates of interest for our analysis are those that are determinants of the treatment status and the outcome variable. Enders and Sandler () found that income per capita, population, and democratic freedoms were the main determinants of whether INTERPOL member countries installed MIND/FIND technologies. We gather real GDP per capita and population data from the World Bank and we obtain a measure of democratic freedoms, Polity , from POLITY IV PROJECT (Marshall, Jaggers, & Gurr, )…”

Section: The Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The associated crime‐fighting transnational externalities derived from MIND/FIND were not fully internalized by member countries. In order to understand the reasons for these unexploited benefits, Enders and Sandler () studied why some countries chose to join the MIND/FIND networks and others did not. They found that income per capita, population, and democratic freedoms were the main determinants of whether INTERPOL member countries installed MIND/FIND technologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

INTERPOL's Surveillance Network in Curbing Transnational Terrorism

Gardeazábal

Sandler²

2015

J. Pol. Anal. Manage.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the role that International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) surveillance—the Mobile INTERPOL Network Database (MIND) and the Fixed INTERPOL Network Database (FIND)—played in the War on Terror since its inception in 2005. MIND/FIND surveillance allows countries to screen people and documents systematically at border crossings against INTERPOL databases on terrorists, fugitives, and stolen and lost travel documents. Such documents have been used in the past by terrorists to transit borders. By applying methods developed in the treatment‐effects literature, this paper establishes that countries adopting MIND/FIND experienced fewer transnational terrorist attacks than they would have had they not adopted MIND/FIND. Our estimates indicate that, on average, from 2008 to 2011, adopting and using MIND/FIND results in 0.5 fewer transnational terrorist incidents each year per 100 million people. Thus, a country like France with a population just above 64 million people in 2008 would have 0.32 fewer transnational terrorist incidents per year owing to its use of INTERPOL surveillance. This amounts to a sizeable average proportional reduction of about 30 percent.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Preliminaries On Interpol and Mind/findmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Preliminaries On Interpol and Mind/findmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

INTERPOL's Surveillance Network in Curbing Transnational Terrorism

Gardeazábal

Sandler²

2015

J. Pol. Anal. Manage.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Multiagency programs with police as a partner for reducing radicalisation to violence

Mazerolle

Cherney

Eggins

et al. 2021

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Multiagency responses to reduce radicalisation often involve collaborations between police, government, nongovernment, business and/or community organisations. The complexities of radicalisation suggest it is impossible for any single agency to address the problem alone. Police-involved multiagency partnerships may disrupt pathways from radicalisation to violence by addressing multiple risk factors in a coordinated manner. Objectives:1. Synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of police-involved multiagency interventions on radicalisation or multiagency collaboration 2. Qualitatively synthesise information about how the intervention works (mechanisms), intervention context (moderators), implementation factors and economic considerations. Search Methods: Terrorism-related terms were used to search the Global Policing Database, terrorism/counterterrorism websites and repositories, and relevant journals for published and unpublished evaluations conducted 2002-2018. The search was conducted November 2019. Expert consultation, reference harvesting and forward citation searching was conducted November 2020. Selection Criteria: Eligible studies needed to report an intervention where police partnered with at least one other agency and explicitly aimed to address terrorism, violent extremism or radicalisation. Objective 1 eligible outcomes included violent extremism, radicalisation and/or terrorism, and multiagency collaboration. Only impact evaluations using experimental or robust quasi-experimental designs were eligible. Objective 2 placed no limits on outcomes. Studies needed to report an empirical assessment of an eligible intervention and provide data on mechanisms, moderators, implementation or economic considerations. Data Collection and Analysis: The search identified 7384 records. Systematic screening identified 181 studies, of which five were eligible for Objective 1 and 26 for Objective 2.Effectiveness studies could not be meta-analysed, so were summarised and effect size

show abstract

Criminal justice interventions for preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism: An evidence and gap map

Sydes,

Hine,

Higginson

et al. 2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCriminal justice agencies are well positioned to help prevent the radicalisation of individuals and groups, stop those radicalised from engaging in violence, and reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks. This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) presents the existing evidence and gaps in the evaluation research.ObjectivesTo identify the existing evidence that considers the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism.Search MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the academic and grey literature to locate relevant studies for the EGM. Our search locations included the Global Policing Database (GPD), eight electronic platforms encompassing over 20 academic databases, five trial registries and over 30 government and non‐government websites. The systematic search was carried out between 8 June 2022 and 1 August 2022.Selection CriteriaWe captured criminal justice interventions published between January 2002 and December 2021 that aimed to prevent radicalisation, violent extremism, and/or terrorism. Criminal justice agencies were broadly defined to include police, courts, and corrections (both custodial and community). Eligible populations included criminal justice practitioners, places, communities or family members, victims, or individuals/groups who are radicalised or at risk of becoming radicalised. Our map includes systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, and strong quasi‐experimental studies. We placed no limits on study outcomes, language, or geographic location.Data Collection and AnalysisOur screening approach differed slightly for the different sources, but all documents were assessed in the systematic review software program DistillerSR on the same final eligibility criteria. Once included, we extracted information from studies using a standardised form that allowed us to collect key data for our EGM. Eligible systematic reviews were assessed for risk of bias using the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool.Main ResultsThe systematic search identified 63,763 unique records. After screening, there were 70 studies eligible for the EGM (from 71 documents), of which two were systematic reviews (assessed as moderate quality), 16 were randomised controlled trials, and 52 were strong quasi‐experimental studies. The majority of studies (n = 58) reported on policing interventions. Limited evidence was found related to courts or corrections interventions. The impact of these interventions was measured by a wide variety of outcomes (n = 50). These measures were thematically grouped under nine broad categories including (1) terrorism, (2) extremism or radicalisation, (3) non‐terror related crime and recidivism, (4) citizen perceptions/intentions toward the criminal justice system and government, (5) psychosocial, (6) criminal justice practitioner behaviours/attitudes/beliefs, (7) racially targeted criminal justice practices, (8) investigation efficacy, and (9) organisational factors. The most commonly assessed outcomes included measures of terrorism, investigation efficacy, and organisational factors. Very limited research assessed intervention effectiveness against measures of extremism and/or radicalisation.Authors’ ConclusionsConducting high‐quality evaluation research on rare and hidden problems presents a challenge for criminal justice research. The map reveals a number of significant gaps in studies evaluating criminal justice responses to terrorism and radicalisation. We conclude that future research should focus attention on studies that consolidate sound measurement of terrorism‐related outcomes to better capture the potential benefits and harms of counter‐terrorism programs, policies and practices which involve criminal justice agencies.

show abstract

Who adopts MIND/FIND in INTERPOL’s fight against international crime and terrorism?

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

INTERPOL's Surveillance Network in Curbing Transnational Terrorism

INTERPOL's Surveillance Network in Curbing Transnational Terrorism

Multiagency programs with police as a partner for reducing radicalisation to violence

Criminal justice interventions for preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About