Roger Stokes, U.S. state, local and education markets lead at i2 Group, warns many local and state level law enforcement agencies fail to proactively manage intelligence, and says this can negatively affect critical decisions relating to deployment, risk and response. He calls on leaders to treat intelligence as a core operational capability, embedding it into decision-making at all levels and allocating the resources to ensure operational effectiveness.
While U.S. federal law enforcement agencies have long recognized the value of an intelligence-led policy and see it as being a core operational capability, many counterparts in local and state departments have struggled with the practical realities of pursuing this approach.
Undoubtedly, there have been challenges associated with adopting the technology that enables analysts to manage what are ever increasing types and volumes of data. However, the bigger issue is the way leaders at these levels approach intelligence; how the workforces in these departments are resourced and structured; and, ultimately, the repercussions this approach has on operational decision making.
It is a leadership mindset that tends to underestimate the significant change required to shift from a reactive to proactive approach; one that enables data-driven policing to work at scale. This cultural shift requires sustained leadership attention and a recognition that intelligence isn’t something that happens after the event.
To start with, these leaders need to proactively embed intelligence into decision-making at every level, from operational command down to frontline patrols. By recognizing intelligence’s broader value, namely in informing critical factors such as daily command decisions, resource allocation and post-incident reviews, leaders will grasp the more long-term rewards that pursuing this proactive approach brings.
This requires some strategic and structural readjustment, however, notably in how leaders draw on the skills-set of younger analysts increasingly populating law enforcement agencies. Currently, their software expertise and confidence in operating complex systems isn’t always reflected in policy or command level decisions, but significant operational gains can be achieved by incorporating this knowledge into strategic planning.
Another structural challenge relates to the role and responsibilities of senior sworn officers, particularly in smaller departments, who must juggle their intelligence work with other operational commitments. The result is a bottleneck at the very beginning of an investigation, precisely when speed is of the essence.
This problem has been exacerbated because these same individuals must spend considerable time trawling through mountains of data and use their expertise to determine its reliability, whether its use is legally permissible, even when it could assist investigations, and how to fit the intelligence gleaned into evidential standards.
This is where real-time crime centers or RTCCs can enhance operational efficiency. By consolidating these insights instantaneously from a myriad of digital sources such as body-worn cameras, license-plate readers, private surveillance platforms and sensors, these operational hubs can provide decision makers with the situational awareness that enables them to respond to unfolding incidents.
Importantly, RTCCs can help prevent the intelligence fragmentation that occurs when data, stored in separate, siloed systems, isn’t integrated.
All of this requires committed and sustained support, both politically and through continued funding but, to achieve this, leaders must demonstrate that they have planned for intelligence as an ongoing function, identified the predictable costs and outlined clear objectives.
This is easier said than done considering the budgetary constraints that most local and state departments face. However, many will overlook the many funding stream options available to them, from federal down to state level and from non-profit programs through to private foundations. Understandably, competition for such coveted funding will be fierce, but departments that can articulate integrated plans will be more likely to secure it and sustain their activities.
Technology too has a part to play in this proactive approach, enabling decision makers working with scarce resources to better manage how the agency works and therefore be far more effective operationally in the long run.
For instance, by deploying “behavioral” pattern analysis tools – intelligence gathered on historic, criminal activities – law enforcement can channel resources more intelligently to support precision planning, target surveillance where it matters and, when required, redeploy officers or analysts, as conditions change, to deliver more effective outcomes.
Ultimately, intelligence-led policing succeeds because law enforcement agencies align and invest in the governance, staffing and structures that sustain the very tools – RTCCs, advanced analytics and new data sources – that can accelerate decision making.
Being proactive must remain the goal. Intelligence work will always need to accept the reality that successes are difficult to quantify – when criminal activity is disrupted before it happens, there is no incident to report.
However, maintaining a reactive approach is not a sustainable alternative. When crimes are committed, elected officials who hold the purse strings will want to know whether intelligence existed and was acted upon. Unless law enforcement agencies invest in the infrastructure and personnel to answer those questions confidently, they’ll remain vulnerable both operationally and politically, and that’s just the opening criminals will be looking for.
See how i2’s market-leading solutions are used globally in some of the most demanding operational environments. Request a demo to explore how they support real-world decision-making.