Matching Items (1)
Description
Intelligence, or the “critical and substantive products that support law enforcement decision making” (Ratcliffe, 2007, p. v), is a vital component within contemporary law enforcement in the United States. It has been used in a multitude of ways to address problems with specific crimes, populations, or locations. Often, this is accomplished through an intelligence-led policing (ILP) framework. ILP frameworks encompass the utilization of intelligence and analysis to achieve “crime and harm reduction, disruption and prevention through strategic and tactical management, deployment and enforcement” (Ratcliffe, 2016, p.5). While related strategies can be incorporated within an ILP approach, attempts at adopting intelligence-led frameworks in law enforcement typically target specific crimes or are orchestrated from the top down. Patrol-driven ILP initiatives are particularly uncommon, and there have been no known evaluations of such efforts to date. This dissertation addresses this gap in the literature by analyzing and evaluating the Phoenix Police Department’s (PPD) Intelligence Officer Program (IOP). More specifically, it explores how communication and information sharing function in the program, the program's perceived value to the patrol function, and whether the program impacts officer behavior, specifically in terms of productivity and proactivity. Data for examining these three key areas originate from various sources, including surveys of three different groups of stakeholders (patrol officers, intelligence officers [IOs], and IO supervisors), Intelligence Officer Reports (IORs), executive reports from the program, and official activity data from the Crime Analysis and Research Unit (CARU). Results suggest that patrol officers and IOs are involved in communication and information sharing, and perceptions suggest that the IOP is improving these. Diverse information is shared within the program, which is also reflected by success stories that arise from it. Broadly the stakeholders examined seem to be receptive to and supportive of the IOP, with more awareness and familiarity with the program resulting in more supportive views of it. In terms of tangible measures, IOP training and resources appear to decrease both productivity and proactivity. The implications of the aforementioned findings for both practice and research are discussed.
ContributorsBottema, A. Johannes (Author) / Telep, Cody W (Thesis advisor) / Young, Jacob Tn (Committee member) / Terrill, William (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021