Intelligence-Led Policing As a Framework for Responding to Terrorism

• Author: Steven Chermak,Joshua D. Freilich,Edmund F. McGarrell
• Published date: 01 May 2007
• Date: 01 May 2007
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207301363
• Subject Matter: Articles

142

Journal of Contemporary

Criminal Justice

Volume 23 Number 2

May 2007 142-158

© 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/1043986207301363

http://ccj.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Intelligence-Led Policing

As a Framework for Responding

to Terrorism

Edmund F. McGarrell

Michigan State University, East Lansing

Joshua D. Freilich

John Jay College, CUNY

Steven Chermak

Michigan State University, East Lansing

Leading police associations in the United States and the United Kingdom have advocated

that law enforcement adopt an intelligence-led policing model (ILP). Much like the sit-

uation with community policing, there does not appear to be a commonly accepted def-

inition of ILP nor of the practical implications for police agencies' mission, structure,

and processes. This article presents a model of ILP that builds on community policing,

problem solving, and continuous improvement business models that have been adopted

by police departments. Examples of these practices are reviewed as a method of illus-

trating the promise of an ILP approach. A broad conceptualization of ILP is presented

under the belief that ILP will be most likely integrated into law enforcement and will

have the greatest impact if it is adopted from an “all crimes” perspective. The article

concludes with illustrations of the utility of ILP for addressing threats of domestic and

international terrorism.

Keywords: intelligence-led policing; community policing; problem solving; terrorism

The terrorist attacks of September 11th affected society in dramatic ways. Although

scholars caution that the impact of such “focusing events” may be overstated and

their overall impact is best assessed only after significant time has elapsed (Birkland,

2004; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993), it appears that these attacks dramatically influ-

enced society. For example, the 9/11 attacks led to the creation of the Department of

Homeland Security as well as numerous attempts to reform the FBI. There have also

been increased demands on law enforcement to build global partnerships (that lead to

the sharing of intelligence and data about terrorism and other crime issues) and work

more closely with other agencies at home (i.e., public health agencies, private agencies,

fire services, etc). Many states have developed or are in the process of developing

Authors’ Note: This is a significantly revised version of a paper presented at the NATO-Turkish National

Police Conference, “Understanding and Responding to Terrorism,” Washington, D.C., September 8-9, 2006.

McGarrell et al. / Intelligence-Led Policing 143

fusion centers to increase the exchange of information and data across government sectors

to “improve the ability to fight crime and terrorism” (see, e.g., the 9/11 commission

report, Fusion Center Guidelines, 2005, p. 3).

Pressure to change is not new to law enforcement; indeed, it could be argued that

no other public bureaucracy has changed as dramatically as law enforcement has

since the early 1960s. Law enforcement organizations are constantly responding to

external demands, implementing and evaluating new initiatives, and adopting strate-

gies to ensure public safety. Recent years have witnessed calls for law enforcement

to move toward an intelligence-led model of policing (ILP). Of particular impor-

tance are the positions of highly influential commissions in the United Kingdom and

in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the National Criminal Intelligence

Service developed the national intelligence model (NIM), which advocates for

intelligence-led policing. The NIM has been endorsed by the Association of Chief Police

Officers, the Home Office, and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (Hale,

Heaton, & Uglow, 2004; Tilley, 2003). Similarly, the National Criminal Intelligence

Sharing Plan (NCISP), a product of the Global Intelligence Working Group,calls for

all U.S. law enforcement agencies to develop an ILP model and has been endorsed

by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Association of Chiefs of

Police, and every key professional law enforcement association in the United States

(Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005a, 2005b; Carter, 2004). Clearly there is momen-

tum to move toward an ILP framework. Yet like community policing two decades

ago, there is a lack of clarity about what is meant by ILP; its mission, goals, and

objectives; how such a model should be implemented; and importantly, how this

model could be used strategically to combat terrorism.

This article seeks to add to our understanding of ILP and its application to ter-

rorism. We briefly consider the origins of ILP and provide a few examples of police

practices that highlight the promise of the ILP model. We argue that the best prac-

tices identified in responding to gang violence, drug trafficking, and organized crime

could be successfully used in the struggle against domestic and international terrorism.

Traditionally, ILP has been viewed as a specialized police function targeted primarily

at terrorism and homeland security. We argue, in contrast, for a broad conceptual-

ization of ILP that embraces community policing, problem-solving policing, a contin-

uous improvement managerial philosophy, and an “all crimes” focus. Paradoxically,

we argue, the greatest potential for responding to terrorism using this model lies in

this very broad conceptualization.

Origins of Intelligence-Led Policing

Although the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and

Goals (1973, 1976) recommended that all law enforcement in the United States

develop an intelligence capacity, and that agencies with more than 75 personnel