Intelligence Led Policing: A Future towards Interagency Communication

 ILP; infrastructure for sharing information and responding to terrorism
Police agencies across the world are adopting proactive intelligence led approaches to crime management. Knowledge is critical for the success of any organization because it enables the conversion of capital and processes in products and services that deliver stakeholder satisfaction. Further, globalization is driving changes that are challenging the old ways of doing things not only in the policing sector, but also in other sectors. In response to the growing threat from diverse sources, intelligence community (IC) agencies are increasing cooperation to improve the chances of maintaining security within the region and globally. To facilitate the cooperation, the agencies are advancing in information technology and systems that handle and organization the large volumes of information so that they can glean insight that can be leveraged for preemptive actions that stop criminal activities before they cause serious harm to the public (Hughes and Jackson, 2004).

Intelligence involves the collection of important information that provides insight into crime threats and aid in the identification of individual who there is substantial evidence that there is a link to criminal activity. The activity may be ongoing or in the future. Collection of information is an ongoing process, which is accompanied by verification and analysis. Results from the analysis are relayed to field officers, such as patrol officers for apprehension of criminals and prevention of crime. Intelligence is critical to the operation of any agency. The success of the operation is dependent on the intelligence capacity of the organization. While the 9/11 events prompted security agencies to collaborate in the fight against terrorism and other criminal activities, collaboration without the sharing of information results in limited success. Most of the information collected by the agency goes into departmental files. The information is often critical to an investigation carried out by another agency. ILP puts structures in place that enable the sharing of information amongst the agencies. The structures also protect the privacy of citizens (Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice, 2008).
Fusion centers are key elements in the inter-operability of the various agencies. Fusion centers are engaged in data fusion, which is the exchange of information from different sources. The sources include law enforcement agencies, private sector, and public safety department. The analysis of this information is important for the tactical deployment of resources and the development of policies. Fusin centers make use of problem solving processes to examine issues, such as terrorism. Fusion centers facilitate the exchange of information at the different levels of governance, especially for crimes that span different jurisdictions. Therefore, fusion centers have access to different information databases that were previously accessible to individual agencies. The development of fusion centers is timely, especially now that most agencies are facing budget cuts. Fusion centers facilitate the collaboration of expertise in different areas and facilitate further collaboration beyond the sharing of information because the centers foster trust. This breaks down the traditional barriers that limit the collaboration of agencies (Lambert, 2010). Fusion centers are an important part of ILP because they facilitate information sharing, which is important for adopting a problem solving approach to policing and enhancing intelligent operation. Multi databases make trends that were not previously apparent using one database apparent. This creates a more credible depiction of street crime and homeland security.
Globalization coupled with the radicalization in different parts of the world poses a significant threat to established order in the country. Unlike during the cold war and other conventional military engagements, the modern enemy uses non-systematic methods to spread fear and panic. The open design of urban centers, which were built and designed during periods when the world enjoyed relative peace, is a weakness that radical groups are all too happy to exploit. To counter such threats, security agencies must develop and maintain a preemptive capacity that enables the identifications and apprehension of radical who pose a threat to the public. Most security agencies in the country are limited to the collection of intelligence related to street criminal activities. Agencies that collect information geared towards the identification of terrorist and terrorist activities lack the operation capacity posed by the agencies engaged fighting criminal activities. 9/11 events make it clear that a focus on domestic intelligence is important for fighting terrorism. Coordination is important to ensure response it possible at national, state, local, or tribal level (Franklin, 2013).
The existing operation structure limits state and local law enforcement agencies from contributing to the broader efforts of homeland security. While the fusion centers operate at the state level, they face recognition challenges from both the local police and homeland security department. To remedy this problem, it is imperative for the national government to create an intelligence operational policy that enhancing existing intelligence operations by bridging the gap between local policing agencies and the department of homeland security through state operated fusion centers. Cooperation between formal intelligence collection agencies and local police agencies is important because each has a unique contribution. The formal intelligence agencies have the capacity and resources to analysis and act results of analysis (Franklin, 2013). Local law enforcement agencies have the capacity to collect large quantities of domestic intelligence and possess intimate knowledge of local operation environment. Eliminating the barriers between the two levels will certainly enhance the security of the nation.
Fusion centers act as a bridge between internal and external intelligence services. This facilitates the identification and apprehension of suspects even when they manage to pass the many boundary securities. With the engagement of radical groups in their native locations in the Middle East and elsewhere, the main threat remaining to national security at this point is home growth terrorism. The 9/11 events affected the society dramatically. However, the effects of such focused events are not evident until sufficient time has passed. One influence of the event in the country and global is the need for intelligence services to work more closely and share intelligence of issues that include terrorism and crime prevention (McGarrell, Freilich, & Chermak, 2007). The demand to transform is not new in law enforcement. A major movement that has influenced law enforcement globally is community policing. Community policing seeks to redefine professional policing that dominate the modern world by attempting to reestablish connections between the police and society members. This community oriented policing approach provided the platform for ILP. Community policing play an important role in the development of ILP because an important feature of ILP is two-way communication. ILP is effective if only the police afford the community with information about what to look for and what to do with the information they gather. Community policing combine with ILP to provide the intelligence needed to implement intelligent actions (McGarrell, Freilich, & Chermak, 2007).
ILP has been instrumental in the apprehension of terrorist suspects in other countries, especially in Europe. After the London subway bombing, intelligence from multiple sources including street cameras, community informants, and wardens was instrumental in the identification and location of the responsible individuals. Recent arrests in parts of the world including the United States suggest that it is possible for ILP to facilitate the arrest of terror suspect before an attack. This is paramount, especially in the country were domestic terrorism outnumber foreign terrorism. Some of the most dangerous groups in the country include far-right-wing groups. These groups, especially those motivated by spiritual beliefs are candidates for future use of weapons of mass destruction in terror attacks. Domestic far-right groups pose a significant hazard to public safety; however, there is a lack of information about the functioning and operation of the groups in the country. Major activities carried out by these and other terror groups is preparatory crimes. These include bank robberies, credit card thefts, cybercrimes, and procurement of illegal firearms. Ability to share information and coordinate operation amongst the various security agencies can aid in the identification of members in these groups during the preparatory phases and apprehend them before they carry out attacks on the public (McGarrell, Freilich, & Chermak, 2007).
Strategies of intelligence led policing
Intelligence-led policing is a model that depends on assessing and managing risk through the collection and analysis of information. Intelligence officers guide operations. ILP is not new; it originated during the 90s but gained support after 9/11. Although it is built of earlier policing frameworks, such as community policing, it functions in a different manner. Unlike community-policing that focus on cooperation between police and community members to arrest people who have committed crimes with the community, ILP focus on the apprehension of criminals before they commit crimes. In this approach, police expend more time recruiting moles and enhancing shadowing to apprehend offenders before they commit offences. The approach also focuses on the sharing of information with other law enforcement agencies, which is an effective means of tracking and dismantling organized crime (Chermak et al., 2013). The approach appreciates that does not recognize county or city boundaries. A crime commits crimes where it is most convenient for him or her. The agencies can make more arrests if they work together.
ILP is important during this times when budget is a concern for most agencies. ILP enables the allocation of resources where they are most effective. Police appreciate that more than 60% of crimes are committed by 6% of criminals. ILP enables the police to place more surveillance on these suspects to catch them red-handed. Analyzing and acting on the data can able patrols to be focused in areas where crime is predicted to happen next. For example, using data analysis it is possible for police to determine which road has the most number of drank drivers and at what time. Using the information, police patrols are intensified in these roads to limit the number of accidents because of drunk driving. At the heart of ILP are analysts who map out crime patterns and communicate the information to filed officers who act on the information. A major challenge facing ILP is acquiring hard data because it is very hard to measure what is yet to happen (Oliver, 2009).
The department of homeland security is a charged with the responsibility of securing the American people. The organization comprises of more than 240,000 employees with responsibilities ranging from chemical hazards specialist to cyber security analyst. In homeland security, ILP is paramount, especially in this new age where the security of the nation is threatened by terrorist and organized crime. The department uses ILP as a means of achieving its objective by fostering cooperation among the different levels of law enforcement through fusion centers. Fusion centers combine the capacity of state, national, neighborhood, and ethnic law enforcement for the purpose of an intelligence initiative. A major handle facing ILP implementation is budget cuts. However, it is imperative that agencies acquire the necessary training, equipment, and personnel to facilitate ILP operations. Another major handle to the implementation of ILP is a lack of continuity among the different law enforcement agencies. Lack continuity is a challenge that departments and agencies can easily deal with if they commit to ILP. ILP has proven successful in other countries in Europe and in states that have implemented it. ILP is paramount in a resource strained world that is threatened by terrorism (Oliver, 2009).
The logic behind the implementation of ILP is best illustrated by an example of a person standing downstream by the river. The man keeps putting bodies from the river and tries to identify who is responsible for killing and dumping the bodies in the rivers upstream without going upstream. The police have been functioning this way for many years. They respond to crime scenes and try to determine who is responsible for the crime. ILP enables a new approach to crime solving where the man standing downstream does not have to stand there and try to solve the floating body misery as they float downstream. He walks upstream and try to identify at which point the bodies are dumped in the river. He follows the people responsible for dumping the bodies and arrests them before they kill or damp another body. This revolutionary approach will guarantee the safety of the American people. Crimes are stopped before they happen (Chermak et al., 2013).
The effectiveness of intelligence-led policing
Intelligence-led policing facilitates the arrest of individuals before they commit crimes. Examples of such incidences include the arrest of terror suspects in different parts of the country and the apprehension of illegal immigrates in the U.S.-Mexico boundary. Although ILP aims to apprehend offenders before they commit a crime, it is effective in identifying and locating criminals who have already committed a crime. For example, ILP aided in the arrest of individuals responsible for the London subway bombings. ILP is particularly timely in the United States considering that security and law enforcement agencies are facing budget cuts. It enables the efficient allocation of resources and the sharing of not only information, but also the expertise, which eliminate repetitive activities in different law enforcement agencies (McGarrell, Freilich, & Chermak, 2007).
Summary
ILP is built on the community-policing platform, which enabled the police to collect information relevant to criminal activities from the public. Community-policing also facilitates the communication of intelligence findings to the public to eliminate fear and create awareness. ILP is an essential part of the process because it receives the gathered information and analysis it to develop actionable intelligence. The intelligence is acted upon to secure the safety of the public. The department of homeland security is taking the lead in fostering collaboration among the different law enforcement agencies through fusion center at the state level. The fusion centers facilitate the sharing of information among different agencies, which is particularly important for dismantling terrorist groups and organized gangs (Franklin, 2013).
Conclusions
ILP facilitates interagency communication, which is important in the modern, globalized world where the country faces threats and criminal cells operating from the other side of the globe. The government has structures in place to secure the safety of the American people. Previously, the law enforcement bodies have functioned in jurisdiction without the need for much cooperation. However, the changes in criminal activity, especially the mobility of organized crime members poses a risk to this kind of operation. To ensure the agencies continue safeguarding established order, it is necessary for the agencies to increase interoperability to ensure criminals operating in multi jurisdictions are apprehended. To facilitate cooperation, fusion centers at the state level exist that have access to multi databases and serve different law enforcement agencies including homeland security. Analysts in the center study patterns and frequency of crime facilitating efficient allocation of resources and apprehension of criminals before they commit crimes.

 References
Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice. (2008). Reducing crime through intelligence led policing.
Chermak, S., Carter, J., Carter, D., McGarrell, E. F., & Drew, J. (2013). Law enforcements information sharing infrastructure. Police Quarterly, 16 (2), 211-244.
Franklin. D. (2013). State level intelligence doctrine: Bridging the gap.
Hughes, V., & Jackson, P. (2004). The influence of technical, social and structural factors on the effective use of information in a policing environment. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 65-76.
Lambert, B. D. (2010). Intelligence-Led Policing in a Fusion Center.
McGarrell, E. F., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. (2007). Intelligence-led policing as a framework for responding to terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23 (2), 142-158.
Oliver, W. M. (2009). Policing for Homeland Security: Policy & Research. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20 (3), 253-260.