Working Towards Intelligence-Led Policing: The Phoenix Police Department Intelligence Officer Program

Article Overview

  • Title: Working Towards Intelligence-Led Policing: The Phoenix Police Department Intelligence Officer Program

  • Authors: Cody W. Telep, Justin Ready, A. Johannes Bottema

  • Published In: Policing, Volume 12, Number 3, Pages 332–343

  • Abstract:

    • Since October 2014, the Phoenix Police Department (PPD) has been implementing a program to integrate intelligence into patrol operations via intelligence officers (IOs).

    • This program focuses on the daily patrol activities of IOs for information gathering and reporting to intelligence analysts to solve recurring problems.

    • The paper reviews the IO program, the literature guiding its development, implementation efforts, and evaluation of impacts on officer activities, attitudes, and crime rates.

Introduction

  • Importance of Intelligence Gathering:

    • Intelligence and crime analysis are critical for reducing crime and addressing chronic issues (Ratcliffe, 2016).

    • Issues arise when intelligence operations are confined to fusion centers or special counter-terrorism units, limiting vital information sharing.

  • Information Sharing Challenges:

    • Gaps in sharing information highlighted by the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015).

    • Suggests the need for consistent information-sharing technology standards to manage data effectively.

  • Valuable Field Information:

    • Much information from officers in the field often goes unreported; only shared in official reports.

Development and Implementation of the IO Program

  • Pilot Program Initiation: 2014:

    • PPD launched the pilot program in a single precinct to improve intelligence gathering and sharing.

    • Focus on integrating intelligence into patrol operations systematically thereafter expanded to all seven precincts.

  • Role of Analysts:

    • Emphasis on the contributions of crime and intelligence analysts to assist in the implementation of effective strategies.

Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP)

  • Defining ILP:

    • Although definitions vary (Carter, 2016), ILP generally emphasizes analysis and use of crime intelligence to strategically reduce and prevent crime (Carter, 2009, 2013; Ratcliffe, 2016).

    • Incorporates criminal intelligence with crime and event analysis.

  • Recent Broader Scope of ILP:

    • Extends focus from chronic offenders to include crime hot spots, repeat victims, prolific offenders, and criminal groups (Ratcliffe, 2016).

  • 3-i Model (Ratcliffe, 2016):

    • Interpretation: Analyze the criminal environment to learn about issues.

    • Influence: Use intelligence to guide decisions organization-wide.

    • Impact: Intelligence should lead to evidence-based approaches to crime reduction.

  • Integration with Other Policing Innovations:

    • ILP shares principles with problem-oriented policing (POP), using intelligence in all problem-solving stages (Eck and Spelman, 1987).

Research on ILP's Effectiveness

  • Existing Gaps:

    • Limited research on ILP's application and impact on crime control (Heaton, 2009).

    • Bureau of Justice Assistance report that notes success even without rigorous outcome analyses or assessment.

The Phoenix Police Department Intelligence Officer Program

  • Creation of the IO Program (2014):

    • Addressed disconnection between criminal intelligence functions and daily patrol operations.

    • Located in the Phoenix Intelligence Center (PIC) which is part of Arizona’s fusion center.

  • Initial Challenges:

    • Historical lack of regular information submission and sharing limited actionable intelligence.

Structure of the IO Program

  • Three Levels of Operation:

    • Individual Level: IOs gather and forward intel to analysts, assist other officers.

    • Team Level: Use pooled intelligence to address chronic problems via problem-oriented framework.

    • Organizational Level: Aim for an intelligence-led approach across all precincts.

  • Multi-Phase Operationalization:

    • Pilot in Mountain View Precinct:

    • Area of 36.7 square miles with a population approx. 215,000.

    • First IOs received 40 hours training.

    • Training and Tools:

    • Focus on intelligence gathering, social media research, and interview techniques.

    • Specific emphasis on problem-oriented policing and integration of intelligence into operations.

Implementation Activities and Outcomes

  • Performance Indicators from November 2014 to October 2017:

    • Stats: 5,678 patrol assists, 597 investigative assists, 1,380 arrests, 3,562 suspects identified, 388 intelligence officer reports submitted.

    • Monthly Averages:

    • 24 patrol assists, 3 investigative assists, 2 IORS entries, 6 arrests, 15 suspects identified.

  • Intelligence Officer Reporting System (IORS):

    • Facilitates actionable intelligence sharing and is central to the IO program's operations.

    • IOs must submit entries and responses reviewed by intelligence analysts.

Challenges and Progress in Intelligence Sharing

  • Limitations of Information Sharing:

    • Initially remains largely internal despite connections to local, state, and federal agencies.

    • Difficulty in tracking the outcomes resulting from shared actionable intelligence.

Specific Case Studies and Problem Solving

  • Target Areas for IO Program:

    • Focused on locations with high emergency call volumes; recurring targets and crime hot spots identified.

  • Using S.A.R.A Model:

    • Specific analysis of conditions to formulate responses.

    • Collaborated with crime analysts to effectively tackle crime in identified areas.

Program Expansion and Ongoing Efforts

  • Subsequent Classes and Training Updates:

    • Additional classes held for precinct IOs, with transitioning of primary IOs across precincts to promote knowledge sharing and expansion.

  • Future Training and Resources:

    • Plans for advanced IO training to equip officers for streamlined intelligence processes.

    • Continued support from Bureau of Justice Assistance for program evaluation and training resources.

Evaluation Plan

  • Research Questions:

    • Familiarity and interaction level of patrol officers with the IO program.

    • Differences in officer activities based on IO involvement.

    • Effectiveness of IO program in generating actionable intelligence for chronic problem locations.

    • Role and characteristics of IORS entries in developing actionable intelligence.

  • Preliminary Survey Results (March and October 2015):

    • Majority of respondents view the program positively, with high communication levels with IOs correlating to improved perceptions of the program’s impact on their work.

  • Key Findings on Program Impact:

    • Supported improvements in intelligence gathering capabilities, although areas for growth exist in efficiently using unassigned time.

Conclusions and Future Work

  • Overall Findings:

    • Initial strong support for the IO program from patrol officers, particularly those involved in information sharing.

    • Continuation of evaluations and revisions in the program as it scales across precincts while adapting based on ongoing feedback.