Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingReducing CrimeThroughIntelligence-LedPolicingThis project was supported by 2008-DD-BX-K675, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of theOffice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, theOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of SexOffender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. The opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingTable of ContentsExecutive Summary . iiiAcknowledgements . vIntroduction and Overview . 1Background and Methods . 1Lessons Learned. 3Command Commitment . 4Problem Clarity . 4Active Collaboration . 4Effective Intelligence. 4Information Sharing . 5Clearly Defined Goals . 5Results-Oriented Tactics and Strategies . 5Holistic Investigations . 5Officer Accountability . 6Continuous Assessment . 6Project Goals . 6Austin, Texas, Police Department—Rapid Response . 7The Problem . 7The Plan. 7Summary . 9Evans County, Georgia, Sheriff‟s Office—ILP Successes in a Rural Setting . 10The Problem . 10The Plan. 10Summary . 12Medford, Oregon, Police Department—Operation C.A.R.E. . 14The Problem . 14The Plan. 14Summary . 17Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Police Department—Safe Streets Initiative . 18The Problem . 18The Plan. 18Summary . 20Palm Beach County, Florida, Sheriff‟s Office—Gangs as Criminal Enterprises . 21The Problem . 21The Plan. 21i

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingSummary . 23Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department—Resolving a Gang Resurgence . 24The Problem . 24The Plan. 24Summary . 26Richmond, Virginia, Police Department—An Integrated Approach toHomicide Investigations . 27The Problem . 27The Plan. 27Summary . 31San Diego, California, Police Department—West Coast Offense . 32The Problem . 32The Plan. 33Summary . 34San Francisco, California, Police Department—A New Reliance on Analysis . 35The Problem . 35The Plan. 35Summary . 38Tampa, Florida, Police Department—Focus on Four . 39The Problem . 39The Plan. 40Summary . 42Conclusion . 44ii

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingExecutive SummaryThrough the Targeting Violent Crime Initiative, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, has identified numerous lawenforcement agencies throughout the United States that have experienced tremendous success incombating complex crime problems plaguing their communities. A cornerstone of theseagencies‟ efforts appears to be the incorporation of intelligence-led policing, along with otherinitiatives, to address their crime problems.To better understand the role of ILP in these successes, BJA requested a study of selectedprograms that represent a broad spectrum of agencies that are geographically diverse and variedin agency size and available resources. The purpose of the study was to identify commonalities,challenges, and best practices that may be replicated in other jurisdictions.The study was composed of case studies of selected agencies and involved delving intothe nature and scope of the crime problems targeted, examining institutional changes made toaddress those crime problems, and identifying ongoing or newly implemented complementaryefforts. Many, but not all, agencies selected for the study were grantees of the BJA TargetingViolent Crime Initiative.A protocol was developed to collect program information, and a team visited ten agenciesto review data and policies and conduct interviews. Although the agencies exhibited differingoperational practices and organizational styles, it quickly became apparent that they sharedcertain commonalities that were critical to their success. These include: Command commitmentProblem clarityActive collaborationEffective intelligenceInformation sharingClearly defined goalsResults-oriented tactics and strategiesHolistic investigationsOfficer accountabilityContinuous assessmentThe case studies in this report validate the fact that implementing ILP substantiallyenhanced the ability of these high-performing agencies to achieve success. ILP wasimplemented in varying degrees within these agencies and was often complemented by otherpolicing practices, such as community policing, problem solving, and CompStat based on robustdata collection and analysis.The success of these programs also reflects BJA‟s principles of: Emphasizing local controlBuilding relationships in the fieldiii

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led Policing Developing collaborations and partnershipsPromoting capacity building through planningEncouraging innovationSharing these successes in a publication such as this reflects BJA‟s commitment tocommunicating the value of justice efforts to decisionmakers at every level.iv

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingAcknowledgementsVery special thanks are extended to the law enforcement agencies and professionals who shared theirtime, experiences, and lessons learned regarding their intelligence-led policing efforts.Austin, Texas, Police DepartmentChief Art AcevedoDeputy Chief David CarterCommander Troy GayMs. Karen JacksonRichmond, Virginia, Police DepartmentChief Bryan T. NorwoodMajor Norris L. EvansMajor Sydney G. CollierMajor Eric D. EnglishMs. Evelyn V. McGillMr. David M. McCoyMs. Margaret HornMr. Brian CummingsCaptain Brian RussellLieutenant Jeff GoodsonMs. Renee TateAgent Brian SwannMs. Tracy Thorne-BeglandMr. Chris BullardEvans County, Georgia, Sheriff‟s OfficeSheriff Randall TippinsChief Deputy John EdwardsMedford, Oregon, Police DepartmentChief Randy Schoen (Retired)Deputy Chief Tim GeorgeMilwaukee, Wisconsin, Police DepartmentChief Edward A. FlynnMs. Nicole DemottoCaptain John HagenSan Diego, California, Police DepartmentChief William LansdowneLieutenant Jorge DuranAssistant Chief Robert KanaskiLieutenant Andrew MillsExecutive Assistant Chief David RamirezPalm Beach County, Florida, Sheriff‟sOfficeSheriff Ric BradshawChief Deputy Michael GaugerMajor Dan McBrideColonel James StormesLieutenant Michael WallaceSan Francisco, California, PoliceDepartmentInterim Chief Jeff GodownDeputy Chief John MurphyPhoenix, Arizona, Police DepartmentChief Jack F. HarrisLieutenant Charlie ConsolianTampa, Florida, Police DepartmentChief Stephen Hogue (Retired)Chief Jane CastorMs. Janet CidLieutenant Kenneth Mormanv

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingIntroduction and OverviewThe purpose of this paper is to report on new experimentation with intelligence-ledpolicing (ILP) to arenas of crime and disorder and beyond terrorism. The Bureau of JusticeAssistance, through a competitive grant program, sought ideas for innovative methods to dealwith violent crime through the use of ILP. This report describes some of these initiatives thathad demonstrable successes.Background and MethodsInnovation in policing has been characterized by leaders creatively applying ideas orprinciples from other disciplines to the policing enterprise. For example, the professional era ofpolicing was born through former Berkley, California, police chief August Vollmer,1 whoapplied contemporary business management principles as well as ethical standards and a sense ofprofessionalism to policing. His protégé, O.W. Wilson,2 expanded Vollmer‟s vision, particularlyby applying management philosophy that was contemporary at the time, such as FrederickWinslow Taylor‟s The Principles of Scientific Management.3 Besides being a police leader, Mr.Wilson authored several policing books, the most widely used of which was PoliceAdministration.4 Not only did Mr. Wilson solidify the professional model of policing, he alsolaid a solid foundation of thoughtful, empirically based police management and service deliverythat was responsive to crime problems within the community.Many experiments and innovations built on this foundation—inquiries into the wide arrayof police services by the President‟s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration ofJustice;5 the Police Foundation‟s6 wide array of research, particularly on police patrol; and theearly research efforts by the predecessor to the Office of Justice Programs, the National Instituteof Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. These collective works added significantly to thebody of knowledge about the delivery of police services and represented the first significantresearch testing police practices, including the effects of such long-held basic tenets of policingas preventive patrol and response time.Around 1980, a significant conceptual shift began occurring, building on the concept ofempirical experimentation, toward community-based policing. The significant work ofHerman Goldstein in his book Policing a Free Society,7 followed by his book Problem-OrientedPolicing;8 the work of James Q. Wilson and George Kelling on “Broken Windows,”9 which1For a description of Vollmer‟s accomplishments, see ed-modern-policing/.2A thumbnail biography of O. W. Wilson can be found at 3See ilson, O. W., and Roy McClaren. (1977). Police Administration. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,Publishing.5President‟s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). Task Force Report: ThePolice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.6See 7Goldstein, Herman. (1977). Policing in a Free Society. New York, NY: Ballinger Publishing Company.8Goldstein, Herman. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.9See atlantic monthly-broken windows.pdf.1

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led Policingfocused on the reduction of disorder in communities; and Robert Trojanowicz‟s work oncommunity policing10 collectively introduced new ways of thinking about the police enterprise.Particularly characteristic of this approach to police service delivery was the use of the scientificmethod to test different applications and derivatives of these concepts. While there was initiallya great deal of resistance in the policing community, the research and experiences of agenciestrying the concepts soon demonstrated the value of this paradigm shift.Emerging from this era of scientific policing was CompStat, led by former New YorkPolice Commissioner (and former Los Angeles Police Chief) William Bratton. 11 CompStatintegrated many of the lessons learned from previous experimentation: a scientific analysis ofcrime problems, an emphasis on creative and sustained approaches to solving the crimeproblems, and strict management accountability. In many ways, CompStat introduced the era ofsmart policing.12Stimulated by the new law enforcement role in intelligence as a result of the 9/11 attacks,the concept of ILP emerged in the United States. With roots in the British National IntelligenceModel,13 American ILP relies on analytically understanding multijurisdictional crime threats,developing a pathway toward solving the crime problems, and relying on proactive informationsharing, both within the agency and externally with other law enforcement agencies, to maximizethe number of law enforcement personnel who may identify indicators of threats and intervene.The lessons learned from police research, community policing, and CompStat providedimportant insight into how to shape American ILP.Applying these concepts to pervasive crimes of violence, the Bureau of JusticeAssistance14 (BJA) provided a solicitation for proposals for law enforcement agencies to developinitiatives to fight violence using ILP under the Targeting Violent Crime Initiative (TVCI). Thecase studies summarized in this publication illustrate how ILP can be used by law enforcementagencies of all sizes to deal with crime problems.A review of TVCI and related BJA programs was performed to identify ILP initiativesthat showed success, could be replicated, and represented agencies of diverse type andgeographic location. The variables guiding the selection of the agencies and programs forreview were: Viability—The programs had to demonstrate some level of success. Whilesome initiatives were too new for extensive assessment, all agencies selectedshowed sufficient promise for inclusion in the report. Collaboration—Information sharing and collaboration among various state,local, and federal agencies were an obvious factor in successful programs andquickly emerged as a major criterion for inclusion.10As an example, see people/cp/thebasic.html.As an example, see .abstract.12For more information on this concept, see Intelligence Model C of P.pdf.14See

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led Policing Transferability—Programs had to be transferable to other jurisdictions. Thereare numerous programs that are unique to an agency and a particularjurisdiction, but unless the program could be re-created in another agency,there was no point in including it in this report. Sustainability—The history of law enforcement is replete with fads and oneshot programs that became extinct with a change of command or simply a lossof enthusiasm. Of the criteria used for selection, sustainability was the mostdifficult to assess. Many of the initiatives reviewed were fairly new; the onesselected, however, demonstrated a level of commitment across a broadspectrum of the community and participating agencies, indicating a highprobability of sustainability.A protocol was developed to collect program information, and a team visited each site toreview data and policies and conduct interviews. The agencies selected for review were:, Texas, Police DepartmentEvans County, Georgia, Sheriff‟s OfficeMedford, Oregon, Police DepartmentMilwaukee, Wisconsin, Police DepartmentPalm Beach County, Florida, Sheriff‟s OfficePhoenix, Arizona, Police DepartmentRichmond, Virginia, Police DepartmentSan Diego, California, Police DepartmentSan Francisco, California, Police DepartmentTampa, Florida, Police DepartmentLessons LearnedEach agency visited had different operational and organizational styles. What each hadin common with the others, however, was demonstrated effectiveness in a program or in overalloperational capabilities. Despite their differences, a review of the programs revealed a numberof key factors common to each: commitmentProblem clarityActive collaborationEffective intelligenceInformation sharingClearly defined goalsResults-oriented tactics and strategiesHolistic investigationsOfficer accountabilityContinuous assessment3

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingCommand CommitmentIn each initiative evaluated, it quickly became apparent that both viability andsustainability were heavily dependent on the commitment by the chief executives of the agenciesinvolved. A primary concern of all programs was whether the initiatives would survive a changeof command. A number of departments handled this with a plan of internal succession in whichthe incoming chief executive had already committed to the programs in place. Other agencieswere fortunate enough to have a chief executive with sufficient tenure in office to see allorganizational changes institutionalized. Two primary risks to sustainability were observed anddiscussed among a number of agencies reviewed. The first was the arrival of a new chiefexecutive with a different vision. The second was budget limitations that effectively gutted theprogram. Both situations posed the greatest risk to program sustainability.Problem ClarityA problem cannot be solved unless it is accurately understood. Each agency visited wascareful to assess the problems it confronted. A number of departments recounted their problemswith the Uniform Crime Reporting system, which is often at odds with their state‟s crimeclassifications in the penal code. Those agencies dealing with gang problems emphasizedidentifying gang leaders and enforcers. Still others sought ways to generate community input.All were definite about the need to clearly understand the problem they were tasked to solve.The key to such clarity was identified as access to accurate information, whether statistical,geographical, or behavioral.Active CollaborationEach agency reviewed stressed that the level of success was often dependent on the levelof cooperation among partnering agencies. Those agencies working closely with adjacentdepartments, state and federal agencies, and state and federal prosecutors reported high levels ofprogram success and satisfaction. The reality in the modern world is that no agency can beeffective alone. Increasingly, the foundation for success is laid with a network of cooperationbetween and among overlapping agencies. In the truest sense, this is force multiplication and isthe best method for a law enforcement agency to leverage resources not otherwise available.Effective IntelligenceIntelligence involves the collection of critical information related to the targetedcriminality that provides substantive insight into crime threats and identifies individuals forwhom there is a reasonable suspicion of relationship to a crime. Information collection is aconstant process, along with ongoing information verification and analysis. Analytic productsrelated to threats are disseminated to patrol officers and investigators to aid in the apprehensionof offenders and the prevention of crime.Each agency reviewed stressed the critical nature of intelligence in its operations. Formost, the initiatives put in place could not be successful or even exist without a dedicatedintelligence capacity.4

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingInformation SharingCollaboration without sharing information will provide limited success.Lawenforcement officers and agencies collect a tremendous amount of information. Often, most ofthe information collected goes into a personal or departmental file. Yet some of this informationis critical to an investigation occurring in an adjacent department. All of the programs in thisproject stressed the importance of sharing information, and all put procedures in place to ensurethe continuous flow of information among their partners. It should be noted that all agenciesalso had guidelines in place to ensure that the personal privacy of their citizens was protected.Clearly Defined GoalsEach agency reviewed had clearly stated goals that were easily measurable. Each agencywas able to specify with great clarity what it was attempting to do. Whether it was accuratelyidentifying key gang members, clarifying a specific crime problem, or identifying the source of asocial problem within the community, each agency and unit was quick to clearly define andestablish its goals.Results-Oriented Tactics and StrategiesWhether targeting gang members, reducing auto theft, or addressing crime problems inspecific zones, each program implemented activities designed to attack the problem specified. Inevery case, the agency or unit could be said to be “bottom line” operations. After establishinggoals, each agency created long-term strategies and short-term tactics designed to meet the goals.Not content with vague notions of success, each agency defined success in terms that coincidedwith established goals. Agencies were considered successful only if the program accomplishedwhat it said it would accomplish.Holistic InvestigationsOne of the surprising ideas to emerge from this project was the evolving idea of holisticinvestigations. Traditionally, criminal investigations focus on a single crime or category ofcrimes, such as drugs or assault. This is the reason for special investigative units. Lawenforcement has long known that many criminals do not specialize, especially if they are part ofa gang. A number of the agencies studied emphasized the merging of investigations. Forexample, some agencies combined the gang and drug units into a single entity. Othersencouraged specialized units to expand their investigations into areas beyond their immediateresponsibility. connection between auto theft and auto burglary and a wide array of personal andproperty crimes. While Individuals involved in drug trafficking, for example, may also beinvolved in property crimes. Prostitutes are often involved in illicit drugs and property crimes.Several agencies stressed the law enforcement agencies have always known this, the agenciesreviewed here aggressively pursued those linkages, with impressive stories of success.5

Reducing Crime Through Intelligence-Led PolicingOfficer Accountabilit

Austin, Texas, Police Department Chief Art Acevedo Deputy Chief David Carter Commander Troy Gay Ms. Karen Jackson Evans County, Georgia, Sheriff‟s Office Sheriff Randall Tippins Chief Deputy John Edwards Medford, Oregon, Police Department Chief Randy Schoen (Retired) Deputy