POLICE METHODOLOGY


cars, pets, even lawyers, gang members, associates, colleagues, club-mates, acquaintances, contacts, paramours, right down to old school friends.


Local community oversight includes


consultation, continuity and consensus; both community safety and public satisfaction direct police to accept information from all quarters of society. Concerns of all sections of a community must not only be considered but be valued; accordingly public satisfaction will be policing’s antagonist. Alarmingly, too much


collection, recording, evaluation, retention and sharing of information. A component of any community policing intelligence model is it is required to explore down to the minutia, understand relevant character, identify the salient, the lawful, all the while protecting its citizens and their neighbourhoods by servicing the


the heart of a community, voluntarily and randomly submitted, even potentially unattributed. It can be obtained as anonymous, private, confidential, with or without motivational bias.


“Community intelligence can utilise loosely associated contacts in order


intelligence opportunity is lost, or to be specific, not captured; consequently, exponents of intelligence- led policing are potentially presenting in ignorance as some products cannot not be fully sourced. Analysis can only examine and explore the data held, conclusions can be inadvertently lacking in depth, or become subjected to conjecture. This is the heart of the issue, information is at our core, it is the business process of


to obtain information which can be as effective as using a number of deeper strategic sources.”


needs of communities through better communication and understanding. Where Community Intelligence-Led


Policing Methodology (CILPM) looks different is in the acquisition of the material. It can be taken as unconfirmed, uncorroborated, unsolicited, or even non- specific gossip. It is essentially directed by the individual citizen’s disclosure, whilst nonetheless untargeted, it is straight from


Consider the two-way confidence built between a police officer and a citizen and more importantly, that between a citizen and an officer in the street - it is mutually invaluable. It is not merely citizens who inadvertently cross a criminal’s path unknowingly at some point in time. Nor is it about the number of members of the public that unwittingly intersect criminals and police


alike. Similarly, it is not singularly about policing – it is about an intelligence methodology which includes a lawful process implemented to maximise the collection of data, intelligence, conscious and unconscious information or observation.


I describe CILPM as an informal


formality; the information’s submission is informal – it is a conversation or experience or observation of an event or person that is communicated to a member of a police service. Significantly it is information that does not qualify as a crime complaint, an occurrence report, incident notification, or an intelligence submission in its own right. Community policing is a fundamental structure within national policy, a coordinated system for social control and for the safety of a population which is under threat through financial constraints or by conjecture, lethargy, prudence, ignorance, rhetoric, complacency. Community Intelligence-Led Policing Methodology is a progressive commitment to managing local neighbourhood generated information. It is the enablement of direct communication, a facilitation of consensus, an insight. What it offers policing is direct access to the populace, through geographic, religious, ethnic, gender, age, race, nationality, politics, sexuality, socio-economic class, or educational characteristic.


CILPM is neighbourhood policing- centric, it is innovative, it offers public reassurance, it enhances confidence in its community’s policing through personal contact. It is created to prevent crime, substantially contributing to criminal investigations, thus enhancing community safety and reducing victims of crime. It responds to a community’s need for trust and dialogue.


42 | POLICE | APRIL | 2024


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52