Community Intelligence: A Powerful Tool for Law Enforcement

Community intelligence is sometimes abbreviated to 'commtel' (Hogard et al., 2007, p.187), by some researchers, it provides useful information to law enforcement about issues in the local area. This can assist police forces in directing resources and focusing on targeted intelligence-led patrols and operations (Innes, 2005). When discussing community intelligence, it is important to understand the distinction between community intelligence and intelligence obtained within the boundaries of the Regulation Police Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). A large majority of community intelligence is widely accessible and available to police forces, as opposed to more formal covert intelligence which requires special authorization or access (Hogard et al., 2007, p.187). Community intelligence is an intelligence-gathering tool within the category of Human Intelligence (HUMINT) and is categorized as another intelligence tool alongside other deployments and methodologies such as CHIS handling and assisting offenders. However, Community Intelligence is often provided by regular members of the local community who do not usually have affiliations with criminality or lawbreaking (Innes, 2006). This essay will focus on the deployment and use of community intelligence within law enforcement as well as critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of community intelligence as an intelligence tool. Lastly, this essay will critically assess the contribution that community intelligence provides law enforcement in identifying and combating criminal and terrorist threats as well as minimizing harm.

What is community intelligence?

The deployment of community intelligence interlinks with community policing and neighborhood policing and within the intelligence paradigm itself. A 2009 study by Innes et al., defined community intelligence as information that, when examined, can provide an understanding of possible risks or harms presented by or directed at a specific group who share a collective self-identity. Trojanowicz et al., identified that community intelligence is an effective methodology in intelligence gathering and provided local police officers with a key opportunity to work with the community in identifying and tackling local issues and solving problems which were highlighted as priorities for the community. Despite this research focusing on communities in Serbia, the essence of community intelligence and its deployment is relatively universal. Community intelligence is obtained from a variety of sources including but not limited to; local citizens, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), and local businesses or organizations. Information provided to law enforcement is usually analyzed through the traditional intelligence cycle model. A study by Herring demonstrated the intelligence cycle with key stages of; 'identifying key needs, planning, and direction, information processing and storage, collection, analysis, and production and dissemination' (Herring, 1999, p.6). After the information is analyzed, processed, and disseminated, local police devise targeted and strategic patrols or focus on specific issues posing harm or risks to or from groups within the community.

PCSOs were introduced under the Police Reform Act in 2002, their role is to conduct street patrols, have high visibility within the local community and to assist with the minimizing of low-level criminality which results in strengthened public reassurance and confidence in the local police (ACPO, 2008). Through conducting these high visibility reassurance patrols, PCSOs hold the ability to integrate into the local community and are able to obtain intelligence otherwise not generally available to regular police officers. Although, a PCSO can only integrate within a community if they are accepted by the community and if the community trusts the local PCSOs to provide intelligence on ongoing or prominent issues (Johnston, 2007). As well as PCSOs, local citizens, and local businesses or organizations also play a key role in providing community intelligence. The information provided by these varied sources can also assist law enforcement in creating 'Community Impact Assessments', which detect flaws with community confidence, identify specific vulnerable people or groups, and develop community intelligence (College of Policing, 2021).

Key examples of community intelligence

The type of information obtained from community intelligence ranges between low-level disorder or criminality such as fly-tipping or anti-social behavior, to the extremes of serious criminality which poses a risk to individuals in the community, such as organized crime or terrorism. Key cases such as Fiona Pilkington and her disabled daughter, Francesca, in Leicester, England highlight the value of community intelligence but also the catastrophic consequences if the information provided to law enforcement is incorrectly collated and disseminated. Pilkington took her life and her daughter's life because of the persistent abuse and anti-social behavior targeted at her family and home by specific nuisance groups in the community over several years (BBC News, 2011). A 2004-2007 report adjudicated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) into Pilkington's contact with Leicestershire Police highlighted serious flaws with the methods that Leicestershire Police used to record, gather, and disseminate critical information regarding this anti-social behavior. Pilkington reported copious incidents regarding the harassment of her disabled daughter, criminal damage, and vandalism to her home (Walker, 2011). The IPCC report identified that these incidents were recorded individually and that Leicestershire Police had failed to link the incidents and had failed to identify the incidents as Hate Crimes (IPCC, 2007). The report also identified that local officers stated Bardon Road where Pilkington lived, was 'not considered an anti-social behavior hotspot' (IPCC, 2007, pp.179-180). Due to this, the area was not included within proactive patrol plans or in problem-solving plans by the local neighborhood police (IPCC, 2007). This disparity could be due to various factors including the failings of local officers to correctly record incidents. Additionally, it is possible that because of the lack of police response to initial incidents, the local community confidence could have diminished, and residents ceased reporting incidents of a similar nature to the police. This socio-behavioral pattern has been labeled as a 'critical incident, or CI' (College of Policing, 2021) whereby the lack of effectiveness and efficiency in police response to an incident directly impacts community trust and confidence with the police. This can have a detrimental impact on the intelligence that law enforcement gathers from the community. Therefore, the problem-solving strategies that are implemented are potentially inaccurate and cannot mitigate the harms and risks within the harms and risks posed to the community.

Another key case study of community intelligence is the murder of April Jones in Wales in 2012. In the first critical hours after April Jones' disappearance, detectives spoke with Jones' 7-year-old friend regarding a vehicle that Jones was witnessed standing nearby before her disappearance (BBC News, 2013). With this interview, police were able to ascertain that the vehicle suspected of involvement in Jones' disappearance, was a left-hand Range Rover, a particularly distinct and unusual car (Brown, 2013). With this crucial piece of information law enforcement was able to identify vehicles matching the description and use various police and civil databases to pinpoint potential suspects. This case highlights the value of community intelligence and that when collated effectively, it is an efficient and valuable tool in mitigating further harm in the community as well as advancing criminal investigations.

Community intelligence also provides information to law enforcement regarding serious criminality such as terrorist threats or activities. Since the 77 London bombings, police forces and the UK government frequently publicize leaflets, information brochures, and media campaigns relating to suspicious activity for public awareness with an emphasis of reporting this activity to law enforcement. These behaviors or activities include buying large quantities of chemical products, buying personal protective equipment, photographing security points of interest, and discussing or promoting terrorism across social media (Met.police.uk, 2021). The London 77 bombings were committed by individuals from Leeds, a 'city in the north of England not renowned for radicalism or community tension' (Innes, 2006, p.229). However, in the immediate aftermath, it was exposed that the alleged leader of the group, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was alleged to have associations with radicalized mosques (BBC News, 2005). In addition, three of the four terrorists involved Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, and Hasib Hussain all held minor criminal records and were known to law enforcement before the attack (Gilmore, 2009). However, in the aftermath of the attack, numerous reports circulated concerning their extremist views, unusual and suspicious activity, and strange trips abroad. These reports included family and friends of both Hussain and Tanweer noticing orange streaks in their hair, likely from chemicals they were exposed to when bomb-making, (The House of Commons, 2006) and reports about the fourth terrorist, Germaine Linsday, frequently discussing his extremist views at school (The Independent, 2015). None of these incidents were reported by associates, teachers, or members of the public.

These vital fragments of information could have assisted with law enforcement's awareness of the terrorists' beliefs, activities, and movements. However, when analyzing the 77 bombings, it is crucial to recognize underlying factors which may have limited the lack of community intelligence available to law enforcement. These factors include alienation, socioeconomic backgrounds as well as community cohesion (The Independent, 2015). Innes, 2006 argued that traditional intelligence practices have only been partially successful and achieved limited infiltration in Muslim communities when investigating radicalization. Therefore, due to the nature of close-knit radicalized groups within the community other intelligence methodologies are more perhaps more suitable in yielding information that can assist law enforcement with identifying threats and tackling harm. The UK government deployed a strategy in 2017 which involved the extension of prison sentences for individuals who neglect to report terrorist activity to law enforcement as well as warning terrorist associates of police investigations (Dearden, 2007). This could assist law enforcement with dispersing radicalized sub-groups within the community.

Furthermore, after the racially motivated murder of a London teenager, Stephen Lawrence, a handwritten note from an unknown member of the public, with a list of names of those involved, was left on a marked police car (Casciani, 2012). Though the investigation in the murder of Stephen Lawrence has widely been criticized in recent years, some citizens in the community in South London were willing to provide information to law enforcement. Although, it is pertinent to note the motivations of these community 'tip-offs' can be malicious, and this must be considered when evaluating information.

Critical Analysis of community intelligence

Deploying community intelligence as a law enforcement or intelligence tool can be extremely valuable and useful in detecting threats or risks and mitigating harm to the community and individuals as demonstrated in the cases previously discussed. Bullock identified the interdependent relationship between information collected by local law enforcement and the number of staff available and specially trained to process the information into valuable, decipherable intelligence. Also, the notable lack of diversity across police forces arguably plays a significant factor in citizens within communities having confidence and trust in law enforcement. A 2021 UK government publication focused on the ethnicities of police workforces highlighted '92.7% of police officers at the end of March 2020' (GOV.UK, 2021). This publication revealed that across the police workforce, Asian officers and staff made up 3.1% and Black officers and staff totaled 1.3% (GOV.UK, 2021). The lack of diversity could be limiting the yield and amount of community intelligence law enforcement is receiving. Likewise, with the lack of diversity across police forces, there is also a notable lack of linguistic skills, namely foreign languages (Sumpter, 2016). Several police forces around the world and in the UK have sought to rectify the divides between the community and law enforcement. For example, The Metropolitan Police initiated a recruitment campaign stating a desire for candidates to possess an additional language (Sumpter 2016). Through implementing these changes, in theory, there will be fewer barriers in collecting information from the community. Another benefit with community intelligence is that the citizens and business owners residing in the community are the 'eyes and ears' of the day-to-day issues occurring. This information if elicited appropriately has the potential to be extremely valuable to law enforcement and with the addition of police officers and staff possessing linguistic skills, there would be an even greater yield. Although, in smaller communities, officers with foreign language skills may belong to a subgroup within the community and this may present difficulties in intelligence yielding. For example, a citizen may be more reluctant to discuss a criminal matter to an officer within their subgroup for fear of wider community reprisals.

Overall, community intelligence is a valuable and useful law enforcement and intelligence tool. However, just as CHIS handles, assisting offenders, and cooperative witnesses, there are limitations and restrictions to the deployment of community intelligence. Instead, it is pertinent to deploy community intelligence in conjunction with a range of other intelligence methodologies and practices. A key benefit with community intelligence compared to other intelligence tools is that it is primarily a proactive tool, as opposed to a reactive tool, meaning as intelligence is collected, a strategy can be devised and implemented. Community intelligence contributes to the entire intelligence paradigm in law enforcement.