Adrian James

The advance of intelligence-led policing strategies: the emperor’s new clothes?

The perceived ineffectiveness of traditional reactive policing methods has led to an increasing use of innovative policing strategies. This article looks beyond the rhetoric and examines the true extent of that change in the UK. Focusing on the police use of informers, the article considers the implications for the future development of police/public relations as more proactive and intrusive strategies are utilised by police.

Forward to the past: reinventing intelligence-led policing in Britain

Drawing on archival, secondary material and primary research, this paper examines ‘Total Policing’, the strategy recently adopted by London’s Metropolitan Police. It situates that analysis within a critical examination of other innovative policing strategies previously employed in Britain. It argues that the prospects for Total Policing depend upon the resolution of long-standing problems such as: the inadequacy and inefficiency of local intelligence work; the paucity of evidence for the success of commanders’ previous efforts to harness together the component parts of their forces in pursuit of a single mission; and, above all, a seeming inability to learn the lessons of the past.

The road not taken: understanding barriers to the development of police intelligence practice

ABSTRACT To better understand police intelligence practice, we examined practitioners’ views of their work and their relations with the wider law enforcement community. We surveyed intelligence staff (n = 110) and interviewed a random sample of respondents (n = 12). Our analysis suggested that traditionalism and the dominant action-oriented culture limit the organization’s understanding of intelligence practice. Largely, the focus in that context has been on street cops’ propensity to reject reflection in favor of action, but intelligence practitioners need also look to themselves. Too often, the philosophy of “need to know” is prioritized over its antithesis, “dare to share.” Though perceived by practitioners as low-risk and consistent with organizational norms, we argue that inappropriately applied “need to know” is the enemy of efficiency and real accountability, offering low levels of reward and discouraging the kinds of partnership, reciprocity, and multi-directional knowledge transfer that policing needs to be successful in the information age. We reconceptualized an interactivity/isolationism continuum, used in the natural sciences, to help interpret that phenomenon. We argue that isolationism is but one factor in a complex organizational dynamic, but it is a significant one because it can subtly limit the influence and reach of the intelligence milieu in previously unacknowledged ways.

Intelligence led policing

Stenning have three main observations. First, they argue for authoritative specification of the respective roles of police chiefs and the political bodies that supervise them. In countries where there is a clear legislative framework that sets out respective powers and responsibilities, it appears that governance conflicts are less. The authors’ second suggestion is that more efforts should be directed towards training and preparation of both supervising politicians and police chiefs at the time of appointment. This is partly addressed already in England and Wales by the Strategic Command Course, and the authors feel that something similar would benefit police governance in other national contexts. The final observation is that governance systems may work better with some kind of appointed board to intercede between police chiefs and elected politicians. It is argued that these should be distanced from partisan political control, and be provided with adequate resources and expertise. This book has much to recommend it. It provides a rare example of cross-national comparison of police governance, it is based primarily on first-hand accounts of police chiefs, and includes some thoughtful reflections about the causes, dynamics and possible solutions to the conflict between professional autonomy and political oversight within democratic police governance systems. It is also accessibly written and succinctly argued. The flipside of this last point is that the book’s relatively short length, coupled with its ambitious coverage, precludes an in-depth exploration of some issues. In particular, it would be good to explore in more detail the relationship between social, political and legal contexts and the structure and dynamics of police governance. The contextual overview of the socio-political features of the different countries is inevitably quite brief, and there is also limited room to develop the discussion of the scholarly literature on police governance. Nevertheless, the authors themselves are explicit about the book’s limitations at the outset, and as a springboard for further comparative study it provides an important addition to the literature. The challenge for future comparative scholars is to explore in more depth – via detailed empirical comparisons of a smaller subset of countries – the many fascinating issues raised in this book.

Evaluating the NIM: County Case Study

This second case study examines the extent to which a largely rural police force in England, referred to here as ‘County’ implemented the NIM. It was significant that County’s relatively small size meant that it simply did not present the same organizational issues evident in Urban. County differed from Urban in that even before the NIM emerged it had sought to demonstrate its commitment to ILP. That was an important factor in the NIM story in County because (at least superficially) the force was much more prepared than Urban to accept the model. Just as in the Urban case, my analysis is based on my own observations of business meetings, on interviews with officers, police staff and policing partners, and on the views of a broad range of frontline officers that were collected from focus groups.

Evaluating ILP and the NIM: Urban Case Study

This chapter, the first of two case studies, evaluates the extent to which the introduction of the NIM in ‘Urban’ represented a genuine effort to mainstream ILP in that force. I examine the force’s bifurcated approach; its decision to reject the NIM as an organizing framework for corporate business but to mandate its local policing units to implement the model.

ILP in the Contemporary Era

This chapter traces the emergence and development of modern day ILP models in Britain. The first of those, the Kent Policing Model (KPM), is acknowledged as the template for intelligence-led strategies across the developed world. The second, the National Intelligence Model (NIM) (an elaboration and extension of the KPM), represents the apotheosis of ILP in the UK in modern times. In critically examining those models, I draw on secondary data and on primary research in the form of interviews I conducted with senior police officers and other officials who either were directly involved in commissioning, designing, or implementing one or both of the models.

Intelligence-Led Investigation

This chapter continues the narrative up to the rediscovery of ILP strategies at the beginning of the 1990s. Specifically, it assesses the extent to which that iteration of ILP which emerged in the modern era, largely concentrated expertise and resources in the specialist detective squads. It examines the further development of a kind of class structure in policing that has undermined the single service vision for policing that has been advocated by many police leaders in modern times. Moreover, it examines the policing and policy contexts of criminal investigation and detective work in the modern era because their influence on ILP in the contemporary era is considerable.

Evaluating the NIM: Challenges to the Model

This chapter continues the ILP narrative by evaluating the putative implementation of the NIM in the police forces in England and Wales. The chapter highlights ACPO’s inability to coordinate the activities of its fiercely independent membership. It explains the diminishing influence of its supporters on NIM implementation. It also analyses senior commanders’ opposition to the plans for the model. These are important next steps in explaining ILP in Britain because the contrasting ways in which the NIM was received by senior commanders explains why ILP took the shape that is revealed in the case studies explored later.

Setting the Contemporary Policing Scene

Since its emergence in Britain as a discrete policing strategy, ILP has been advanced as a panacea for the most pressing of policing’s ills; the police’s seeming inability to meet the ordinary expectations of their staff, their communities and their political masters. ILP strategies have been adopted across the developed world. Wrapped in the rhetorics of crime-fighting, reflexivity, and capacity-building, they usually have been presented as innovative and cost-effective solutions to society’s problems. Overwhelmingly and unapologetically realist in nature, they demonstrate that the police take crime seriously and are ready and willing to take decisive action when needed.