Chapter 7: Influencing decision-makers. Important notes These slides are not a replacement for the text Please use these slides as a starting point for.

Chapter 7: Influencing decision-makers

Who’s who?

Decision-makers People and institutions that can have an impact on the

criminal environment Clients

People who commission or receive a crime intelligence product

Often (but not always) interchangeable

“Knowing and understanding the client’s current focus is an essential element of ensuring the work produced is welcomed by a receptive client as a relevant and timely contribution. Most critically, client understanding maximizes the chance that the intelligence will be utilized and have a positive impact on the criminal environment.”

(Nicholl 2004: 66)

Who are decision-makers?

Front-line officers The traditional target for tactical intel products

Unclear if they are decision-makers in the 3i framework because they are easily drawn away by emergency calls and other activities

Analysts need to maintain a close contact with the front-line because they are often a source of quality information

Who are decision-makers?

Front-line officers Police leadership

Compstat and intelligence-led policing both place heavy emphasis on accountability and leadership

This is especially the case in the middle ranks of the police service

The assumption that police commanders ‘know’ how to do crime prevention is not borne out by their training schedules

Who are decision-makers?

Front-line officers Police leadership Non-law

enforcement

Agencies that have compliance-based processes or regulatory control are in this category.

Part of the growing nodal governance situation: networks of actors both within

law enforcement and from outside agencies such as government and the private sector, all of whom have responsibilities to provide security.

See Wood and Shearing (2007)

Who are decision-makers?

Front-line officers Police leadership Non-law

enforcement The general public

The main target for information dissemination in the Community Policing Era

Intelligence-led policing and POP take a similar approach: engagement of the public in

the solution to crime problems is appropriate when they can help, but not an essential ingredient necessary to solve every problem.

Publicly available Threat Assessments are a way to influence public thinking

Who are decision-makers?

Front-line officers Police leadership Non-law

enforcement The general public Security networks

Beyond traditional police to include: Customs and border control Immigration authorities Defense agencies Organizations with national

security responsibilities In the UK 1998 Crime and

Disorder Act made multiagency crime prevention initiatives a statutory requirement

Example of a security network

Greater Manchester Against Crime Partnership Business Model

A business process model For partnership (multi-agency)

working Developed by a multi-agency team From an interpretation of the police

National Intelligence Model

GMAC PBM planning cycle

Influencing decision-makers

1. The decision-maker’s institutional environment exerts considerable pressure

2. Decision-makers demand actionable intelligence products over descriptive reports

3. The evolution from knowledge to intelligence product is dependent on the nature of the decision-maker

This all suggests a complex relationship between decision-maker and analyst

Dealing with decision-makers

“If the client’s experience in dealing with intelligence as a decision-making tool is rudimentary and unsophisticated, the pressure on the analyst is accentuated. They will generally be unsympathetic to even reasonable requests for more information, more time or a response indicating the question posed cannot be directly answered”

(Nicholl 2004: 55)

A complex problem

“Analysts have no clear sense about which products are considered useful to the target. They produce, deliver, and through anecdotal evidence draw conclusions about the value of their work. Neither the analysts, nor the analysts’ managers are clear about how and how well targets use their product.”

(O’Shea and Nicholls 2003: 16)

Other influences on decision-makers

Solutions?

Analysts should liaise directly with clients Analysts should understand how clients define

success Analysts should be aware of the possibility of

multiple clients

Maximizing influence

Analysts should aim to maximize the distribution of their products, and not work on the ‘need-to-know’ principle

Locate analytical units close to decision-makers rather than close to operational units

Analysts can utilize security networks

Security networks Local security networks

Initiatives that work with public and private resources available at the local community level to overcome the more intractable crime problems with origins in deteriorating social conditions

Institutional networks Networks that smooth the progress of information flow between

government agencies or enable disparate agencies to collaborate and pool resources

Networks without borders Networks that, while similar to institutional networks, facilitate

cooperation at an international level between agencies with national responsibilities

Informational networks The web of electronic and informational technologies that enable

police officers to access vital information remotely

(See Dupont, 2004)

Alternatives to the long, written report

Short 6-page overviews One page summaries PowerPoint presentations Oral briefings Video presentations Text messages

In summary

Influencing decision-makers requires resolute accuracy in detail and fact, but also a flair for the imaginative in terms of getting clients’ attention.