Introduction
The rapid advancement of the information era has altered the nature of policing which now plays a key and essential role in the management of information regarding the safety of the public. The recent development of risk society has forced the police to now act as the central store of crucial information that can be used by different cadres of users. Without a doubt “the primary locus of police activity is the risk communication systems shaped by external institutions”. The shift towards knowledge-based policing was incepted before the last decade but strengthened in the United Kingdom after the publication of “Helping with inquiries: Tackling crime effectively” which focused attention on the failure of conventional approaches of law enforcement to address a rising level of crime, and attempted to affect effective policing. The factors that influenced social change in the United Kingdom, including globalization, an apparent increase in organized crime, and enhanced effectiveness of the police to use information technology systems to manage information, also influenced the move toward knowledge-based policing model adopted by other countries, such as Canada, the United States, and Australia.
The ability to employ novel approaches to information management to have a deeper insight into and act in response to the changing criminal setting is not the only sphere of knowledge-based policing. It partly connects with how the analysis of crime is made use of in problem-oriented policing, both for describing the problem and evaluating it. The analysis of the crime of high volume, which includes the employment of mapping, is now a central undertaking of crime assessors and is crucial to CompStat. CompStat is a functioning management process that does not merely entail crime mapping. Nevertheless, the volume crime mapping model is an important component of the general approach. CompStat combines “computer technology, operational strategy, and managerial accountability, and is inherently data-driven”.
Knowledge-based policing differs from other policing models by the fact that it focuses on repeat offenders, and it encourages the surveillance and the utilization of informants to gain access to information that may otherwise be difficult for the police to obtain. The concerns surrounding these techniques have been voiced particularly concerning their extensive use. On the other hand, knowledge-based policing is similar to other models of intelligence policing and crime analysis particularly when it comes to convincing police officers that knowledge-based tactic of crime reduction, together with crime analysis, is more effective. A focus on intelligence-driven approaches often seems to encounter a chronic challenge of opposition to transformation, either through the uncertainty of the effect of innovations on the working environment of law enforcement officers or as an element of the overall rigidity of police culture. Even in situations in which police officers are willing to embrace new concepts, there is normally a lack of clearness concerning both organizational understandings of the new ideas or clear systems of transforming the new ideas into crime control.
The emergence of knowledge-based police
The growth of knowledge-based policing over the last years has been driven by various factors. The major factor influencing the need to try out new approaches to controlling crime emanates from the well-documented inability of the traditional form of policing. The scarceness of evidence surrounding the impact of “a reactive and investigative approach to policing on the level of crime” has contributed to the significant study of different forms of policing. In addition, police departments were financially constrained in the 1970s and 1980s when the rate of recorded crime increased significantly, thus adding further momentum to the exploration for different policing models. Due to the fact that demands on the police far outweigh the available resources, operational officers turned to novel policing approaches to combat crime instead of merely increasing the number of police officers and the volume of resources. New technologies enhanced the quantity and quality of information and the capacity of data collection and analysis services accessible to police bosses. These advancements facilitated the growing interest in systematic tactics of identifying and defining problems, widely “referred to as problem-oriented policing.”
The lack of persuasive proof that community policing is successful in minimizing the rate of crime and the knowledge that CompStat is in principle hard to put into practice for an organization charged with controlling crimes that hardly go reported forced the management of many police departments to either implement problem-oriented policing or investigate the views of intelligence-led policing. Scholars have asserted that problem-oriented policing does not have adequate evidence to support its extensive implementation. Whereas a body of evidence surrounding knowledge-based policing is increasing, the implementation of problem-oriented policing has so far been at most one of sluggish development instead of one of quick and fervent adoption by police agencies. On the other hand, knowledge-based policing has been quickly and fervently implemented.
Knowledge-based policing “is a conceptual framework for conducting the business of policing.” It is not a scheme just like saturation patrolling, nor a crime control approach like situational crime reduction. Instead, knowledge-based policing is a business model and a process of obtaining crucial information which enables police departments to have a deeper insight into crimes and to make use of available resources, and implement the most effective enforcement or prevention approach. Knowledge-based policing originated from the United Kingdom following the publication of two significant government reports which acknowledged the majority of the challenges which are related to conventional policing. Based on the problems, the Audit Commission proposed that the police ought to concentrate on the offender instead of the crimes committed. As a result, it was recommended that more resources should be made available to facilitate the gathering of intelligence as well as the practical aiming of endemic offenders. One significant view of a practical strategy of crime control is thus the recognition and targeting of the “criminally active” segment of the population as a component of a general crime prevention model.
This practical strategy has over the past decades been tempered by communication which proposes the implementation of a number of the problem-solving advantages gained through problem-oriented policing. This inspired one scholar to suggest a cautious definition of knowledge-based policing as “the application of criminal intelligence analysis as an objective decision-making tool in order to facilitate crime reduction and prevention through effective policing strategies and external partnerships drawn from an evidential base.” Regarding this definition, proof of the effectiveness of police in engaging in partnerships as a way of reducing crime is s far a bit vague, and knowledge-based policing has also changed from being regarded as merely an analytical strategy to a fully-developed business model of policing. Nevertheless, the definition of knowledge-based policing given above acknowledges that the important principles of knowledge-based policing render intelligence assessment essential in institutional structures and decision making, and such principles have been expressed visibly, for instance, in the National Intelligence Model of the UK. Ever since knowledge-based policing was implemented in the UK its utilization has extended to several other countries, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States.
Knowledge-based policing is a policing idea that is characterized by the following attributes: “it is managerially centered and top-down in decision-making format; it is proactive; it is informant and surveillance-focused with heightened attention directed toward recidivists and serious crime offenders, and it provides a central crime intelligence mechanism to facilitate objective decision-making.” As a result, it is easy to understand why knowledge-based policing is of considerable importance to the inquiry subdivision of a police department. Problem-oriented policing appeals to the majority of police officers who are familiar with the intricacies of community challenges; nevertheless, to many police officers, problem-oriented policing lacks the urgency that the public calls for when crime problems seem to be getting out of hand. Knowledge-based policing does not necessitate a considerable cultural change due to its well-liked key principles which mainly focus on crime prevention by focusing on the offender rather than the crime. Nevertheless, it necessitates a paradigm shift in thinking concerning the management of information and the role played by police officers in an intelligence-led law enforcement environment. Moreover, the implementation of knowledge-based policing usually necessitates an organizational adjustment to fulfill the promises made regarding the reduction of crime and the rehabilitation of offenders.
Strategic use of information
The dissemination of information is the core of knowledge-based and intelligence-led policing. Police agencies need to design and implement rules that govern the types of information that need to be collected and the people who will use the collected information. Central to suitable information sharing is the agreement and understanding of who among the law enforcement personnel have the right and the necessity of knowing crucial information, both inside and outside the police departments. In some situations, there may result in several versions of certain information. For instance, an insensitive publication of a released report may warn residents of potential danger, whereas a different version of the same report could provide the police agencies with more details regarding the same threat. The sharing of sensitive information however necessitates the imposition of the third agency rule by the police agency, which forbids any recipient of intelligence from disseminating the information to external agencies. This is crucial because it aids the police agency in maintaining some level of control and accountability, and at the same time, it permits the originating agency to ignore the rule in appropriate circumstances. Electronic information systems are the most capable means of sharing information. Thanks to the accessibility of safe e-mail systems and intranets in the majority of police agencies, intelligence sharing has become quicker and easier. The requirement, however, is to make sure that the information shared has the necessary information and is obtained by the appropriate users. Carter (2005) argues that “if reports deluge law enforcement officers, the overload will have the same outcome as not sharing information at all.”
Impact of Knowledge-based policing on law enforcement
Globalization has brought with it increased risks of crime. Increased cross-border migrations, as well as increased production of weapons of mass destruction, and changing demographic characteristics of countries have increased the risks of pre-eminent threats. Unlike the conventional criminal activities that threaten domestic security, the risks exposed by foreigners are more complicated to envision, evaluate and control. Conspiratorial groups operating covertly also make intelligence services central to the security of the state. More than ever intelligence is the prerequisite and most important tool for the prevention of, and timely counteraction against, these new threats. The fact that terrorists, proliferates and transnational organized crime (TOC) groups strive to conceal their motives, tactics, abilities, and actions and undertake misinformation, rejection, and fraud operations to deceive the authorities, creates a necessity for a nation-wide institution that has clandestine and covert capabilities which will enable it to uncover the secrets of these groups, and to gain foreknowledge of concealed and impulsive actions.
Such foreknowledge cannot be gained more successfully, more carefully, or more inexpensively by any other organization or means other than by intelligence agencies. Therefore, intelligence services are an important element in controlling the pre-eminent threats and have grown to be the first line of protection. However, combating the pre-eminent threats by increasing international players more successfully necessitates in excess of intelligence services. In fact, it requires a security sector transformation. The pre-eminent threats can be dealt with only when all actors mandated with the countering of these threats interact with each other more closely. Therefore, existing guidelines, processes, and structures need to be transformed. The aim of this transformation must be to strengthen leadership and to establish effective processes and structures commensurate with the challenges of countering these threats. To this end, three principles form the core of the transformation agenda: network-centric security governance, cooperability, and an intelligence capability orientation.
Network-centric security governance refers to systematic interlocking of four domains: all security sector actors mandated with countering the pre-eminent threats; all levels of decision-making – international, national, and local; all security instruments, and all tasks to be accomplished. The emphasis on network centricity directs attention to cooperability, meaning smooth cooperation among security sector actors and between them and relevant third parties. An integrated security approach, however, extends the understanding of cooperability beyond traditional confines in two ways. First, operations commensurate with the new security demands require a seamless interplay among all actors. A joint approach of all security sector actors is necessary to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Furthermore, a joint approach is a prerequisite for the second extension of cooperability: cooperation with third parties and with the corporate sector. Both extensions need to take place at the national and the international level because neither purely national nor single-agency solutions are adequate to deal with these threats.
Capabilities are the currency of the security sector. The provision of capabilities is focused on mission-critical functions, rather than the means required for fulfilling them. This necessitates a far-reaching novel strategy encompassing a more rigorous partnership, communication, and information sharing among the concerned organizations and the agencies that make up the intelligence community. This novel approach requires the institution of an intelligence branch that generates functional and strategic information in all agencies. To enhance the information sharing confidential, secured communication mechanisms together with information management capabilities should be made available. Knowledge-based operations are often more economical generally because they focus on prevention and pre-emption instead of mere reaction to crimes already committed. In addition, appropriate operational or strategic information permits better targeted and more customized activities, which normally require fewer resources.
Importance of networks
There are compelling reasons why law enforcement leaders believe that it is time for them to change the policies and modes of operations of their agencies. These arguments are based on the documentation of policing and studies carried out of policing during the past three decades, in the face of the dynamic environment of societies, as well as the changing nature of crime and aggression that impact the societies. Policing approaches that used to be effective in the past are no longer working in the present environment. The desired objective, a safer and more secure society, and improved well-being are yet to be realized. The consensus among practitioners is that there is a dire need for the novelty to combat the crime challenges facing many communities. Innes et al. argue that “both the level and nature of crime in this country and the changing character of American communities are causing police to seek more effective methods.” Many metropolitan communities are struggling with grave challenges such as illicit drugs and violent crimes. These problems are not just peculiar to metropolitan communities but have now spread to suburban and rural communities, which are now experiencing an upsurge in the rate of crime and lawlessness. Moreover, the social ties that used to bind society together have slowly but surely disintegrated.
The family unit is no longer as established as it used to be. Single families and dysfunctional families are on the increase. Even in intact families, the economic burden has forced both parents to work away from home. Thus, parents lack adequate time to spend with their children and guide them. The responsibility that used to be borne by parents is now placed in the hands of schools and churches which are not able to fill the void. In addition, the increased immigrants, while changing the demographic characteristic of the American society, usually have diverse interests and chase different goals. Governments are also facing heightened challenges in balancing budgets, which often forces police agencies to distribute increasingly scarce resources to increasing challenges. In this fast-shifting environment, where police contend with high rates of illicit drugs, criminal gang activities, and heightened levels of violence, the notion of networks, particularly community policing, is taking hold.
The police leaders who make use of this rational strategy while addressing the challenges of crime and lawlessness – a strategy that may without a doubt promote and optimize police performance and resources – have responded uniformly in governments and grassroots communities throughout the country. Government and leaders of grassroots communities have begun to acknowledge that they also need to be accountable for ensuring the safety of their neighborhoods. Communities ought to approach the problem of crime, lawlessness, and violence from a unified position, and must be committed to promoting crime prevention and intervention strategies. Police departments should work hand in hand with communities by assisting them to develop stronger, and more self-reliant societies—societies in which law and order thrive.
During the past decade, community policing has received great attention both from police agencies and communities as they sought more effective strategies of maintaining law and order and protecting the security and safety of the general public. This new approach is especially important in this era of recession, high unemployment rates, and increased crime. Frequent budget cuts and a low number of police staff have propounded the insecurity problem faced by many communities. In addition, issues such as illicit drugs, criminal gangs, immigration, and diverse ethnic groups have added to the pressure faced by law enforcement authorities. The approach of community policing as well as the strategies used and its implementation vary widely depending on the requirements and the reactions of communities. However, the objective of community policing is to minimize the level of crime in a neighborhood by assessing the features of the problems that plague that particular neighborhood and then implementing problem-solving techniques.
Community policing is therefore a problem-oriented approach to addressing crime, a characteristic of knowledge-based policing. Most importantly, community policing helps to control the role given to police. This is because increasing police role has the risk of creating soliciting excessive force from the police. On the other hand, reducing police roles has the risk of creating a sluggish police department. Finding the balance is therefore crucial and this can be facilitated through community policing. To be effective, however, community policing should be guided by a positive relationship between the patrol officers and the members of that community.
Governance and regulation
The safeguarding of the domestic and exterior security of a country is crucial and important for the safety of the general public, the core national networks, the national concerns, and other interests of the nation. External threats to a nation can only be countered if the country is strong and guarantees a sufficient level of law and order, and the total safeguarding of civil rights domestically. However, with the advent of the pre-eminent threats, predominantly by foreign players of international terrorism, increase in weapons of mass destruction and transnational organized crime, external and internal security merge and become indistinguishable, with the concomitant accentuation and prevalence of threats coming from within: clandestine, often unknown terrorist networks and shadowy TOC groups operating at the heart of our societies. This is the reason why intelligence is now considered to be the major weapon of a country in the war against pre-eminent threats. In order to protect itself against, and to anticipate, prevent, deter and pre-empt these and other threats to national security, a state needs a strong security sector with more effective security and intelligence services, and with police, border control, and other agencies responsible for fighting these threats being capable of conducting intelligence-led operations. Intelligence has thus become an inescapable necessity for modern governments.
An effective security sector is one where all security sector elements function professionally in a democratic system that involves civilian control and supervision to ensure responsibility and transparency. “A democratic system of civilian control and oversight can vary in its design but serves the critical function of ensuring that the security sector is held accountable to the needs and priorities of the public.” Regardless of the particular form of control adopted in democracies, the most relevant self-governing control of the knowledge-based services and of the activities of all agencies that conduct intelligence-led and knowledge-based operations must be exercised by all branches of the government and also by independent entities. Every element plays its specific role within the whole package of control, supervision, oversight, and accountability.
Reference List
Carter, David, ‘The law enforcement intelligence function: state, local, and tribal agencies, (2005) 74.6, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 1.
Community Policing Consortium, Understanding Community Policing (1994).
Ericson, R. V. and Haggerty, K. D., Policing the risk society (1997).
Guidetti, R.A., Policing the Homeland: Choosing the Intelligent Option (2006).
Gunn, Ben, ‘An intelligence-led approach to policing in England and Wales and the impact of developments in forensic science’ (2003) 35, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 149.
Hale, C., Heaton, R. and Uglow, S., ‘Uniform styles? Aspects of police centralization in England and Wales’ (2004) 14.4 Policing and Society 291.
Heaton, R., ‘The prospects for intelligence-led policing: Some historical and quantitative considerations’ (2000) 9.4 Policing and Society 337.
Innes, Martine, Laurence Abbott, Trudy, Lowe, Colin Roberts, ‘Seeing like a citizen: field experiments in community intelligence-led policing,’ (2009) 10.2 Police Practice and Research 99.
Lowenthal, Mark, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy (4th ed., 2008).
Maguire, Mike, and Tim John, ‘Intelligence led policing, managerialism and community engagement: competing priorities and the role of the National Intelligence Model in the UK’ (2006) 16, Policing and Society 67.
Oakensen, D., Mockford, R. and Pascoe, C., ‘Does there have to be blood on the carpet? Integrating partnership, problem-solving and the National Intelligence Model in strategic and tactical police decision-making processes’ (2002) 5.4 Police Research and Management 51.
Ratcliffe, J. H., ‘Intelligence-led policing and the problems of turning rhetoric into practice’ (2002) 12.1 Policing and Society 53.
Ratcliffe, Jerry, ‘The effectiveness of Police Intelligence Management: A New Zealand Case Study’ (2005) 6.5 Police Practice and Research 435.
Ratcliffe, J., Intelligence Led Policing (2008).
Schreier, Fred, ‘Fighting the pre-eminent threats with intelligence-led operations,’ (2009) 16 DCAF Occasional Paper 1.
Sheptycki, J., ‘The governance of organised crime in Canada’ (2003) 28.4 Canadian Journal of Sociology 489.
Walsh, W. F., ‘Compstat: An analysis of an emerging police managerial paradigm’ (2001) 24.3 Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 347–362.
Williamson, Tom, The Handbook of Knowledge Based Policing: Current Conceptions and Future Directions (2008).