Student number ID: @00409034

Module: Security Networks, Intelligence, and Internal Security

MAISS
Second Essay

Why have police adopted intelligence-led policing? What are the problems
associated with its implementation?

Introduction

According to traditional policing models, law enforcement agencies responses to

criminal behaviour and security threats must be organized around a reactive model of
investigation, where people are reporting crimes and law enforcement agencies are reacting.
Conversely, for more than a decade, there has been a shift regarding the policing methods
employed within the Western states. In this sense, several factors have motivated police
agencies to move towards an intelligence-led policing model, where police officers reformed
their strategies, means, and tactics to certify the efficiency of their actions. As John Coyne has
argued: The role of police has morphed from simplistic responses and enforcement activities
to one of managing human security risks.1 In this case, ILP has been widely advocated as
being the most suitable method of overcoming the emerging threats as well as being the most
effective policing method to make a better use of polices resources -money, time, and
personnel-. Apart from strong motives for police agencies to adopt an ILP paradigm, this
policing model is not without shortcomings or deficiencies. Consequently, the essay will have
the following structure. First, the motives for why law enforcement agencies adopted the ILP
model will be addressed. In this section, the arguments will be based not just on the academic
literature, but also on official reports and documents, published in U.K. or USA, such as the
Audit Commission Report, the HMIC Report, or the 9/11 Commission Report. Secondly, the
essay will outline some implementation issues for an ILP paradigm in the context of post-9/11
policing and highlight polices current struggle to overcome these deficiencies. In this respect,
USAs current implementation issues of the ILP model will be paramount for the essays
argumentative nature. The paper will conclude that in order to overcome the current cultural
bias among police agencies, institutionalize the ILP model within the police agencies, and

1
John William Coyne & Peter Bell, The role of strategic intelligence in anticipating transnational organised
crime: A literature overview, in International Journal of Law, Crime, and Justice, 2011, Vol. 39, No. 1, p. 61.
enhance the protection of civil rights; law enforcement agencies have to re-adapt their policies
to the current necessities and adhere to a revolutionised policing model influenced by
intelligence products.

Reasons for adopting the ILPs model, mind-set, and philosophy

There are a myriad of reasons why the police wanted to adopt the intelligence-led
policing model, mind-set, and philosophy. Certainly, a predominant factor for the adoption of
the ILP model towards crime reduction stems from the acknowledged ineffectiveness of the
former model of policing. As Weisburd and Eck have stated: The paucity of [recent]
evidence have indicated that a reactive approach to policing has led to a considerable need of
[innovation] and exploration of new models of policing.2 In this respect, the adoption of a
problem oriented policing model appears to be the most suitable choice. The reason is that
through the implementation of the ILP paradigm, polices approach is going to be more
adaptive, successful, and effective in responding to the diversity of the emerging threats. As
the Audit Commission has recommended: The remedy for the standard policing model is the
adoption of a proactive approach, totally opposed to the traditional policing model. 3
Therefore, through a proactive policing model, police agencies will not just employ better
strategies but also their resources will be more wisely allocated. As the Audit Commission
has stated: Based on a financial point of view, there is a strong need for a shift from the focus
on reported crime incidents to a focus on the offender.4 In this sense, the advantage of a
proactive approach to crime management like ILP is the first reason for police to implement
this modern policing model. The motive is that this new policing model will allow police
agencies to better understand their crime priorities, the source of the threats, and take a
measure of resources available to decide on the prevention strategy best proposed for crime
control. The most illustrative example of ILPs successful implementation dates in 1990s,
when the Chief Constable Sir David Phillips of Kent Police firstly adopted the ILP model by

2
David Weisburd and John Eck, What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear?, in The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2004, Vol. 539, No. 1, pp. 46-48.
3
The Audit Commission, Police Paper No. 12, Helping with Enquiries: Tackling Crime Effectively, London,
1993, Vol. 2, pp. 4-7, vide http://archive.auditcommission.gov.uk/auditcommission/subwebs/publication s/s t u d
ies/studyPD F/1690.pdf [Accessed on 23rd April 2015].
4
Ibid., pp. 11-13.
beginning to allocate all Kent Polices resources towards a proactive model of policing and by
promoting intelligence sharing among the departments.5
The history of the policing methods used by police agencies has indicated that one of
the reasons for change and innovation were in fact the modifications within the public
environment. To put it differently, the changing nature of threats is a prime reason for a police
agency to adapt its policing model to a specific context. The current social changes along
with fear, insecurity, and growth of organized crime have generated a massive need for
information, knowledge, and efficient policing models. These new international
responsibilities addressed to the police agencies have generated an immediate demand for
what Jerry Ratcliffe labels as policing innovation. 6 As Schaible and Sheffield have
indicated: The growing body of research suggests that the 9/11 attacks have had a
considerable impact on the necessity for new modern policing models. 7 In this sense,
adopting and implementing the ILP model appears to be that shift needed for responding to
the emerging threats. Consistent with these premises, Ratcliffe and Guidetti have highlighted
within their research about New Jersey State Police (NJSP) this prompt change. From their
findings it resulted that NJSP had made serious organizational progressions and demonstrated
a strong willingness for coordinating its Investigation Branch according to an ILP mindset
following the 9/11 attacks. 8 More precisely, based on an ILP philosophy, the NJSP changed
its Investigation Branch fundamentally by absorbing numerous former sub-units engaged in
diverse policing activities from special operations, emergency management, to counter-
terrorism responses. In this way, the Investigation Branchs mandate was changed, techniques
improved, and strategies were more successfully employed. The final result was that the
Investigation Branch became the newest policing tool for NJSP in its endeavor for combating
terrorism, organized crime, violent criminals, and any other illegal activities. To summarize, it
seems accurate to argue that the reason for adopting the ILP mindset by NJSP is the result of
the new security challenges with which police have started managing. As a consequence, the
mandate together with NJSPs responsibility has been expanded from traditional enforcement
activities to proactive investigation, fighting terrorism activities, and combating organized
crime along with its transnational implications. As John William Coyne has argued: The role
5
Lonnie M. Schaible & James Sheffield, Intelligence-led policing and change in state law enforcement
agencies, in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 2012, Vol. 35, No. 4, p.
763.
6
Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Intelligence-Led Policing, Cullompton: Willan publishing, 2008, p. 23.
7
Ibid, pp. 187-189.
8
Jerry H. Ratcliffe & Ray Guidetti, State police investigative structure and the adoption of intelligence-led
policing, in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 2008, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.
112-115.
of police has morphed from simplistic responses and enforcement activities to one of
managing human security risks.9
Another argument for ILPs implementation is the growing importance of the
intelligence analysis stage for the polices decision-making process as well as for other actors
-private belligerents, secret intelligence services, or transnational enforcement agencies- that
are involved in security matters. Intelligence analysis in this case must be understood as
information developed to direct, for example, polices actions. As Tim John and Mike
Maguire have argued:

The Intelligence-led policing model is a source of guidance for police. It is not a

tactic in the way saturation patrolling is, []. Rather, it is a business model and an
information-organizing process that plays a pivotal role in facilitating objective decision-
making.10

In essence, the analysis stage converts raw information into actionable intelligence by
seeking patterns in crime records, liking criminal acts, or constructing detailed suspect
profiles. As Nina Cope has argued: [] right information to the right people at the right time
is crucial for the success of any police agency.11 Actually, if the analysis stage were to be
taken out of the policing model, subsequently polices activities would have been driven by
every bit of information that could have been collected. Moreover, the information for the
decision-making process would have been misused. In response, the ILP model through its
characteristics is crucial and a main requirement for police agencies these days to cope with
the mass of data emanating from various sources. As Jerry Ratcliffe has stated through his 3-I
model (interpret, influence, and impact): The duty of any analyst duty is to pull information
from officers, community members, and raw data. Furthermore, the analyst ought to interview
investigating officers and debrief handlers of confidential information. 12 By properly
interpreting the criminal environment, the analyst is then able to influence the decision-
makers and apply the resources correctly for the problem addressed. Based on this argument,
the reason for adopting the ILP model is that the intelligence analysis stage nowadays offers
police the means to prioritize their activities so that the most critical crimes and risks can be

9
Coyne & Bell, op. cit., p. 61.
10
Mike Maguire & Tim John, Intelligence-Led Policing, Managerialism, and Community Engagement:
Competing Priorities and the Role of National Intelligence Model in the UK, in Policing and Society: An
International Journal of Research and Policy, 2006, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 74-76.
11
Nina Cope, Intelligence Led Policing or Policing Led Intelligence? in The British Journal of Criminology,
2004, Vol. 44, No. 2, p. 191.
12
Ratcliffe, op. cit., p. 110.
acted upon first. In other words, using intelligence analysis for influencing polices decisions,
procedures, and strategies is a great asset and a central reason for ILPs implementation
within any modern police agency.
The acceptance and encouragement for adopting an ILP model was not only driven by
an increased rate of criminality or by different emerging threats, but also by a decrease in the
resources available for the police. It is commonly known that polices resources -manpower,
money, and technology- are limited. As a consequence, the demand for the most efficient
policing model is indisputable. In the case of U.K., these aspects were discussed as a result of
the findings along with the financial issues addressed by the Audit Commission in a 1993
report that proclaimed the ineffective, chaotic, and unproductive use of public resources by
U.K.s law enforcement agencies. 13 As a remedy, the solution was a shift from the law
enforcements focus on general crime to specific targets. By employing this strategy, the
police agencies from U.K. were able to make a better use of the public resources allocated for
their actions. This solution for U.K.s police agencies was also considered within a report
released by Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) entitled Policing With
Intelligence, which began to offer credentials for the practice of the Intelligence-led Policing
model. 14 The recommendation was taken seriously, and by 2002 the British National
Intelligence Model (NIM) was formally adopted.15 From these facts, it can be argued that the
scarcity of polices resources is a motive that contributed to the implementation of a business
process model to deal with crime control and thus creating an environment for introducing the
ILP model into virtually all aspects of policing activities.
One of the advantages and motives for adopting and employing the ILP model by law
enforcement agencies is that their decision-making processes are objectively influenced,
while their source of information varies from communities to other actors such as the private
sector. Indeed, apart from the community-policing model, the ILP model does not rely
heavily on communitys participation for adopting an objective and efficient strategy against a
given threat.16 As expert Jerry Ratcliffe has argued: The ILP model develops strategies and
priorities using a more objective approach of the criminal environment, rather than through

13
The Audit Commission, op. cit., pp. 15-16.
14
Jeremy Gibson Carter, Policing Innovation: Exploring the adoption of Intelligence-Led Policing, Chapter
Two, A Dissertation, Submitted to Michigan State University, Criminal Justice, 2011, pp. 20-21, vide
http://etd.lib.msu.e du/islandora/object/etd%3A1304/datastream/OBJ/view [Accessed on 24th April 2015].
15
Ibid., p. 23.
16
Jerry Ratcliffe, Intelligence-Led Policing, in A. Wakefield & J. Fleming (eds.), The Sage Dictionary of
Policing, London: Sage Publications, 2009, pp. 177-178.
communitys perspectives and expectations.17 This results in the implementation of crime
reduction strategies that are perceived to be distinct from the needs of local citizens. As Andy
Myhill and Paul Quinton have stated:

Communities tend to feel unprotected by the police if law enforcement officers are
not actively seen patrolling the community and can often have the assumption that visual
policing is a better use of resources and is more effective in reducing crime.18

As a result of the fact that ILP does not rely so heavily on community for intelligence
as the other community policing models do, law enforcement agencies operating according to
an ILP model can increase communication and information sharing procedures with the
private sectors, adopt strategies from an objective perspective, and even use the private sector
as an active actor for reducing the tensions, skepticism of polices activities, and fear of crime
within a specific community. As Jeremy Ratcliffe has stated in the case of New Zeeland: The
ILP model promotes the idea of partnership not just with local authorities but also with non-
state actors such the private sector.19 By employing this policing model known as ILP, law
enforcement agencies can use all the resources available emanating for different actors and
can create a holistic, objective, and clear picture of how to manage successfully risks and
employ the policing responses required.
Another reason for adopting the intelligence-led policing model is the financial
intelligence expertise, which can help police agencies in their endeavor to gather evidence,
construct detailed suspect profiles, and conduct in-depth investigation. Financial intelligence
is an important tool for a police agency because it can determine details regarding a criminals
lifestyle, financial status, and criminal associations. 20 This intelligence under the form of
economic information can then be developed and analyzed to detect patterns, trends, fill gasps
of intelligence, and can contribute to further detailed intelligence products for polices
decision-making processes. Moreover, according to the National Policing Improvement
Agency, the use of financial expertise is important for any police agency because it can negate
the need for costly alternative methods of collecting intelligence such as surveillance,
17
Ibid., p. 177.
18
Andy Myhill and Paul Quinton, Confidence, Neighbourhood Policing, and Contact: Drawing Together the
Evidence, in A Journal of Policy and Practice, 2010, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 280-281.
19
Jerry Ratcliffe, The Effectiveness of Police Intelligence Management: A New Zealand Case Study, in Police
Practice and Research, December 2005, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 439-440.
20
National Policing Improvement Agency, Practice Advice on Resources and the People Assets of the National
Intelligence Model, Association of Chief Police Officers, England: Bedfordshire, 2007, p. 18, vide
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/practice_advice_on_analysis_interactive.pdf [Accessed on 26th April
2015].
undercover operations, or wiretapping.21 As a matter of fact, the value of intelligence for
policing activities under whichever form financial, tactical, or strategic is a clear motive to
employ an ILP paradigm and a great asset for polices new role of managing human security
risks. As Kelling and Bratton have argued: The ILP model is probably the most important
and effective law enforcement innovation of the twenty-first century.22

Problems associated with ILPs implementation

Besides the numerous mentioned advantages encouraging ILPs implementation, there

are also several implementation issues when it comes to putting the theory into practice. One
of the intrinsic problems for ILPs implementation is the allocation and the scarcity of
polices resources. Resource allocation refers not just to the distribution of supplies relating to
crime solving initiatives such as patrol cars, manpower, or other equipment. Resource
allocation, in the modern sense of policing as ILP suggests, refers also to resources dedicated
for intelligence functions such as software, computers, or other high-tech equipment. As
Schneider has argued: One of the most important requisites for a successful intelligence
operation is that sufficient resources have been dedicated to a police agency in order for it to
operate effectively. 23 Consistent with the premise, as Jeremy Ratcliff has argued by
designing the i-3 model: The ILP model for instance encourages the idea of using the
existing personnel and helps police to manage more efficiently their resources.24 However,
this potential advantage of ILPs philosophy causes another interrelated issue regarding
polices finance. For instance, even if a part of the financial resources are saved as a result of
ILPs philosophy regarding polices personnel, there is still a requirement for specialized
personnel such as intelligence analyst officers. A requirement that seems to be often
unrealistic if it has to be applied to all police agencies and at all levels within a particular
country. As Wiseman has argued: Not all the police agencies have the same budgets. Hiring
additional police personnel will be difficult, time consuming, and exhausting taking into
account the current economic and social context.25 As a result and as an implementation
issue, the ILP model without the equipment and basic tactical resources becomes an
21
Ibid., pp. 18-19.
22
G. L. Kelling and J. W. Bratton, 'Policing terrorism', in Civic Bulletin, 2006, Vol. 43, No. 1, p. 6.
23
S. Schneider apud David Dannels & Haether Smith, Implementation challenges of Intelligence-Led Policing
in a quasi-rural county in Journal of Crime and Justice, 2012, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 107-108.
24
Jerry Ratcliffe apud Schaible & Sheffiled, op. cit., pp. 764-765.
25
Jane Wiseman, Strategic cutback management: law enforcement leadership for lean times. Research for
Practice, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2011, pp. 2-5, vide
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232077.pdf [Accessed on 27th April 2015].
impractical tool and a waste of money and time that will significantly affect polices
performance, confidence, and success.
The lack of ILP training courses, the ubiquitous old mindset of the polices role, along
with a poor understanding of the add value of a policing model influenced by intelligence
products are other difficulties associated with ILPs implementation. These implementation
issues can be addressed in twofold. First, training for law enforcement officers under an ILP
paradigm is paramount for the policing model to be professionally employed. The reason for
training is that all the stages of the intelligence analysis phase are work-intensive processes
with a high level of difficulty. As Goldstein has argued: Currently, most of the western states
and their law enforcement agencies are confronted with an intelligence skills gap. 26 This
argument emphasizes clearly a scarcity of human resources for police to effectively operate
under an ILP paradigm. Moreover, even if a couple of agencies such as the Bureau of Justice
Assistance have emphasized the demand for ILP training courses, there has been little
progress accomplished in this respect.27 As Rojek has argued in his findings regarding USAs
law enforcement agencies performances towards ILPs implementation:

While community policing training is widely accepted in America, a research in

South Carolina has indicated that 99% of state and nation academies have courses designed for
community policing operations, while only 11% have courses designed to address the need of
ILP or issues associated with intelligence, and its increasing importance.28

The findings of the study have indicated clearly that the ILP model is not so
commonly accepted, and that time is essential for restructuring courses to coincide with ILPs
paradigm. This requirement for time can be very costly, taking into account the current
changing nature of threats and the new role of managing human security risks that must be
assumed by police.
Secondly, there is a strong reluctance from line police officers to comprehend through
training courses the value of an ILP model and to adapt to a modern police role such as
26
Rachel Goldstein, The intelligence skills gap: Building the right workforce to meet our nations security
needs, in The Public Manager, 22th September 2005, p. 1, vide http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+intelligence
+skills+gap%3A+building+the+right+workforce+to+meet+our...-a0141096486 [Accessed on 27th April 2015].
27
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Navigating your agency path to intelligence-led policing, Washington, DC:
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, April 2009, pp. 15-16, vide https://www.go
ogle.co.uk/#q=Navigating+your+agency+path+to+intelligence-led+policing.+Washington%2C [Accessed on
27th April 2015].
28
Jeff Rojek, Robert Kaminski, Michael Smith, and Charlie Sheer, South Carolina law enforcement training
survey: a national and state analysis, Columbia: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of
south Carolina, September 2007, pp. 24-28, vide http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/crju/pdfs/trainingreport.pdf
[Accessed on 27th April 2015].
proactive investigations. As Morabito has argued: Chief executives are often the only ones
who have a more comprehensive understanding of ILP as compared to line level officers.29
This clearly suggests that there is a lack of understanding of the new policing models among
line police officers. As Cope has argued: Strong mindsets among the line level police officers
are a prime restraining force against ILPs application.30 From this perspective, then, chief
executives have a responsibility to encourage the new policing methods, but this effort comes
with poor results because it is difficult to change the mindset of the police officers that were
trained according to the previous policing methods.
This issue was labeled by Burger as organizational inertia31 and was highlighted in a
national survey, regarding ILPs implementation in USA, conducted by two researchers
named Jeremy Carter and Scott Phillips. According to their findings, at the questions:

How familiar are you [police officer] with the concept and the benefits of an ILP
model? What policies have been adopted by your agency to implement the intelligence
function? A great part of the respondents have answered by indicating a lack of clear guidance
towards an intelligence function and by signifying a state of sense of skepticism for ILPs
adoption.32

The results show that the ILP model was generally accepted in theory but there are
problems with applying the theory in context. Additionally, these findings were in fact
translated as being low scores results, showing a potential and visible restraining force against
ILPs overall implementation. All in all, the need for more time for police officers to comply
with the current changes, the demand for a change of mindsets from the old policing models,
and a lack of human resource for polices personnel are three significant reasons why ILPs
implementation is improbable.
Another major issue that must be addressed when a government wants to implement
an ILP paradigm is the protection of civil rights. As Wilson argues: Unlike the private sector,

29
Melissa Morabito, Understanding community policing as an innovation: Patterns of adoption, in Crime and
delinquency, 2010, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 564-567.
30
Cope, op. cit., 197-199.
31
The notion of organizational inertia is defined as a restraining force against new policing methods, such as
the LP model, that prohibits new [policing] policies and procedures to either replace or parallel those already in
existence. Vide Michael E. Buerger, Janus Leadership, in J.A. Schafer and S. Boyd (eds.), Advancing police
leadership: considerations, lessons learned, and preferable futures, Quantico: Police Futures Working Groups,
2010, pp. 92-96, vide http://futuresworkinggroup.cos.ucf.edu/docs/Volume%206/vol6Buerger.pdf [Accessed on
28th April 2015].
32
Jeremy Carter & Scott Phillips, Intelligence-led policing and forces of organizational change in the USA, in
Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 2013, pp. 14-18, vide
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10439463.2013.865738 [Accessed on 29th April 2015].
law enforcement agencies are public institutions that have to respect the civil rights and to be
accountable for their actions. 33 This problem comes along with another issue for ILPs
implementation: the proportionality of the methods employed. These implementation issues
can be addressed in twofold. First, according to democratic principles, there are constitutional
rights that law enforcement agencies have to respect and preserve. For instance, in the case of
USA, there is the Fourth Amendment that protects USAs citizens against any illegal searches
and seizure by the police. Conversely, after the new policing paradigm -ILP- was proposed by
the 9/11 Commission and the Patriot Act was adopted, Congress gave police and intelligence
agencies the authority to conduct surveillance and collect information on USs citizens. As
Chang has argued: Now, according to the Congress, both federal and law enforcement
agencies are able to spy on USs citizens.34
Secondly, due to ILPs philosophy on the use of technology, law enforcement
agencies have recently agreed to build partnerships with military contractors so that their
agencies will gain access to military technology and become more efficient during their
operations. As Jackson and Brown have affirmed: Nowadays, police agencies have access to
MDTs (Mobile Digital Terminals), PMI devices, and also FLIR technology.35 The use of the
other actors and sources of information besides the community is also a motive mentioned
within this essay for the implementation of the ILP model. However, this advantage has also
initiated kindled debates among civilians regarding values, morals, and ethics. As Nunn has
argued: These policing innovations will compromise the police-society relationship. 36
Additionally, Nunn argues:

Due to the recent policing innovations, a myriad of problems have been addressed
ranging from the extended role of the police to concerns about the old justice system that is
inappropriate for an ILPs paradigm.37

33
Wilson apud Arrick Jackson & Michael Brown, Ensuring Efficiency, Interagency Cooperation, and
Protection of Civil Liberties: Shifting from a Traditional Model of Policing to an Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP)
Paradigm, in Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 2007, Vol. 20, No. 2, p.
122. 111-129.
34
Andrew Neal, Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our
Civil Liberties, A Book Review, New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, May 2004, pp. 1-4, vide
https://inspirejournal.files.wo rdpress.com/2011/12/neal01_silencing_political_dissent_review.pdf [Accessed on
29th April 2015]. pp. 1-4.
35
Jackson & Brown, op. cit., pp. 18-19.
36
Samuel Nunn, Seeking tools for the war on terror: A critical assessment of emerging technologies in law
enforcement, in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 2003, Vol. 26, No. 3,
p. 455.
37
Ibid.
 From these perspectives raised, the question is: How can one balance the respect for
the civil rights and the duty of law enforcement agencies to guarantee security and protection?
The answer for this enquiry can be addressed twofold. First, if police agencies are to adopt an
ILP paradigm, they will run the risk of violating civil rights, which may result in criminal,
civil, and administrative liability. Secondly, a strong demand from population for public
scrutiny, federal injunctions, or police accountability will result in other unwanted problems
for police agencies. More precisely, polices resources -time, money, and personnel- in this
manner will be further siphoned off, while law enforcement agencies performances will be
strongly hindered. Consistent with the latter premise, it can be affirmed that the
implementation of the ILP paradigm along with its full employment comes under serious
hesitations that can cause serious risks for polices efficiency and accountability. As Nunn has
affirmed: The protection of citizens rights under the ILP paradigm has proved to be more
problematic than originally thought.38
According to Carter: Information sharing and interagency cooperation are the
cornerstones of a successful ILP model.39 Although the police community model admits the
importance of interagency cooperation, there are still some impediments when it comes to
adopt a policing model such as the ILP paradigm. As Desai has argued: Interagency
community is dominated by individual agency culture rather than a common interagency
culture.40 From this argument, one of the major obstacles in implementing an ILP model is
the culture of a law enforcement agency. Additionally, the complications caused by different
agency culture can be addressed twofold. First, many law enforcement agencies do not share a
common concept of intelligence. Secondly, there is an absence of common doctrine to ensure
that there is a high level of cooperation among police agencies. As the 9/11 Commission
Report has pointed: The absence of a common definition for intelligence along with a lack
cooperation among police agencies are two of the main obstacles for an efficient modern
policing model like ILP.41 According to Eggers, these mentioned deficiencies are in fact the
Achilles heel of law enforcement agencies, and can seriously hamper polices policing
efficiency for the current context.42 To summarize, it appears that apart from the conclusive

38
Ibid.
39
David Carter, Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement
Agencies, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University,
November 2004, pp. 27-29, vide http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e09042536.pdf [Accessed on 30th April 2015].
40
Sunil Desai, Solving the interagency puzzle, in Policy Review, 2005, Issue 129, p. 58. 57-71.
41
9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States, Chapter 3: Counterterrorism Evolves 2004, pp. 71-75, vide http://www.9-
11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf [Accessed on 30th April 2015].
42
Egger apud Jackson & Brown, op. cit., pp. 118-119.
motives for ILPs use, there are serious implementation issues, ranging from disputes
concerning civil rights to police agency culture, which have to be addressed before ILPs
overall implementation.

Conclusion

The essay has shown that the rationality behind policing activities is definitely
changing. Consistent with this premise, it is clear that serious steps towards modern policing
methods have already been employed. There is no singular reason for this significant change,
but rather it is the result of a combination of factors and driving forces, ranging from the
current importance of intelligence analysis to the changing nature of the threats, which must
be addressed. Consequently, it is imperative for police officers and their agencies to be more
efficient in their new role of managing human security risks. From this perspective, the
adoption of an ILP model has meant significant advantages for polices new role. Actually,
the ILP model has helped police in prioritizing, adopting, and implementing the most suitable
strategies with the purpose of reducing crime, fighting organized crime, or combating
terrorism. However, the empirical evidence from the second part of the essay has underlined
issues regarding the implementation of an ILP paradigm. In this sense, the implementation
issues vary from disputes over civil liberties to the demand for ILP training courses and for
institutionalizing the ILP processes. With all these issues addressed, the next step is to
commence initiatives for solving ILPs problems of implementation. As Jackson and Brown
has argued: These initiatives must be focused on funding issues, disputes over ethics, civil
liberties, and most importantly concerning a change in polices officers mindset from old
policing model to the modern ones.43 Once these initiatives against ILPs shortcomings are
going to be thoroughly addressed, the ILP paradigm will prove to be without any question the
most effective policing model for a globalized crime world characterized by a myriad of
threats, perils, and human security risks.
Bibliography

Books and Chapters from books:

Ratcliffe Jerry, Intelligence-Led Policing, Cullompton: Willan publishing, 2008.
Ratcliffe Jerry, Intelligence-Led Policing, in A. Wakefield & J. Fleming (eds.), The Sage
Dictionary of Policing, London: Sage Publications, 2009, pp. 167-180.
43
Jackson & Brown, op. cit., pp. 124-127.
Articles:
Nina Cope, Intelligence Led Policing or Policing Led Intelligence? in The British Journal of
Criminology, 2004, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 188-203.
Coyne, John William Coyne & Bell Peter, The role of strategic intelligence in anticipating
transnational organised crime: A literature overview, in International Journal of Law, Crime,
and Justice, 2011, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 60-78.
David Dannels & Haether Smith, Implementation challenges of Intelligence-Led Policing in
a quasi-rural county in Journal of Crime and Justice, 2012, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 103-113.
Desai Sunil, Solving the interagency puzzle, in Policy Review, 2005, Issue 129, pp. 57-71.
Jackson Arrick & Brown Michael, Ensuring Efficiency, Interagency Cooperation, and
Protection of Civil Liberties: Shifting from a Traditional Model of Policing to an Intelligence-
Led Policing (ILP) Paradigm, in Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law,
and Society, 2007, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 111-129.
Kelling G. L., and Bratton J. W., 'Policing terrorism', in Civic Bulletin, 2006, Vol. 43, No. 1,
pp. 1-11.
Maguire Mike & John Tim, Intelligence-Led Policing, Managerialism, and Community
Engagement: Competing Priorities and the Role of National Intelligence Model in the UK, in
Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 2006, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp. 67-85.
Morabito Melissa, Understanding community policing as an innovation: Patterns of
adoption, in Crime and delinquency, 2010, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 564-587.
Myhill Andy and Quinton Paul, Confidence, Neighbourhood Policing, and Contact: Drawing
Together the Evidence, in A Journal of Policy and Practice, 2010, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 273-
281.
Nunn Samuel, Seeking tools for the war on terror: A critical assessment of emerging
technologies in law enforcement, in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
& Management, 2003, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 454-472.
Ratcliffe Jerry, The Effectiveness of Police Intelligence Management: A New Zealand Case
Study, in Police Practice and Research, December 2005, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 434-451.
Ratcliffe Jerry H., & Guidetti Ray, State police investigative structure and the adoption of
intelligence-led policing, in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 2008, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 109-128.
Schaible Lonnie M. & Sheffield James, Intelligence-led policing and change in state law
enforcement agencies, in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 2012, Vol. 35, No. 4, p. 761-784.
Weisburd David and Eck John, What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear?, in
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2004, Vol. 539, No. 1,
pp. 42-65.

Official Reports and Documents:

9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Chapter 3: Counterterrorism Evolves, 2004, pp. 71-
102, vide http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf [Accessed on 30th April
2015].
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Navigating your agency path to intelligence-led policing,
Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, April 2009, pp. 15-
16, vide https://www.go ogle.co.uk/#q=Navigating+your+agency+path+to+intelligence-
led+policing.+Washington%2C [Accessed on 27th April 2015].
The Audit Commission, Police Paper No. 12, Helping with Enquiries: Tackling Crime
Effectively, London, 1993, Vol. 2, pp. 1-37, vide
http://archive.auditcommission.gov.uk/auditcommission/subwebs/publication s/s t u d
ies/studyPD F/1690.pdf [Accessed on 23rd April 2015].
Wiseman Jane, Strategic cutback management: law enforcement leadership for lean times.
Research for Practice, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of
Justice, July 2011, pp. 2-5, vide https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232077.pdf [Accessed on
27th April 2015].

Sources accessed online:

Buerger Michael E., Janus Leadership, in J.A. Schafer and S. Boyd (eds.), Advancing police
leadership: considerations, lessons learned, and preferable futures, Quantico: Police Futures
Working Groups, 2010, pp. 91-100, vide http://futuresworkinggroup.cos.ucf.edu/doc
s/Volume%206/vol6Buerger.pdf [Accessed on 28th April 2015].
Carter David, Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law
Enforcement Agencies, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, School of Criminal
Justice Michigan State University, November 2004, pp. 27-29, vide
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e09042536.pdf [Accessed on 30th April 2015].
Carter Jeremy Gibson, Policing Innovation: Exploring the adoption of Intelligence-Led
Policing, Chapter Two, A Dissertation, Submitted to Michigan State University, Criminal
Justice, 2011, pp. 17-46, vide http://etd.lib.msu.e du/islandora/object/etd%3A1304/
datastream/OBJ/view [Accessed on 24th April 2015].
Carter Jeremy & Phillips Scott, Intelligence-led policing and forces of organizational change
in the USA, in Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 2013,
pp. 1-25, vide http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10439463.2013.865738
[Accessed on 29th April 2015].
National Policing Improvement Agency, Practice Advice on Resources and the People Assets
of the National Intelligence Model, Association of Chief Police Officers, England:
Bedfordshire, 2007, p. 18, vide http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/practice_advice_
on_analysis_interactive.pdf [Accessed on 26th April 2015].
Andrew Neal, Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures
Threaten Our Civil Liberties, A Book Review, New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, May
2004, pp. 1-4, vide https://inspirejournal.files.wo rdpress.com/2011/12/neal01_
silencing_political_dissent_review.pdf [Accessed on 29th April 2015].
Goldstein Rachel, The intelligence skills gap: Building the right workforce to meet our
nations security needs, in The Public Manager, 22th September 2005, p. 1, vide
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+intelligence +skills+gap%3A+building+the+
right+workforce+to+meet+our...-a0141096486 [Accessed on 27th April 2015].
Rojek Jeff, Kaminski Robert, Smith Michael, and Sheer Charlie, South Carolina law
enforcement training survey: a national and state analysis, Columbia: Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of south Carolina, September 2007, pp. 24-28,
vide http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/crju/pdfs/trainingreport.pdf [Accessed on 27th April 2015].