The law enforcement and analytics standards document was produced by the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative and the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, Inc. It was funded by the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice to demonstrate its support for analytic standards in law enforcement programs. Essentially, the paper is meant to highlight the necessity for standards in law analytics by practitioners as well as sensitizing the general public on the procedures of enforcing a law. The paper is presented in two sections of the analytics standards. In the first section, the authors present seven standards for analytics. In the second section, the paper explains the standards for analytic products/processes.
The seven standards explained in this section of the paper are meant to break down the procedural development of analysts. The analysts are guided from their initial stages of their interest in intelligence analysis and law enforcement to their prime years of prowess in low enforcement analysis. The first standard is education. Education is the first standard of law enforcement intelligence since it sets up the foundation that drives beginners into professionals. The standards outlined for education are based on documented evidence of education and experience in the analytics. The standards ensure that only qualified and competent people can be considered appropriate analysts and practitioners of law enforcement intelligence (Atkin, 2002).
The second standard highlights the training standards. A training of at least 40 hours is recommended, and it should be conducted by analysts with ample law enforcement analytic experience. Such training ensures that trainees have more knowledge to complement their education and experience. The training standard is followed by continuing education as the third standard to ensure that prospective professionals in law enforcement analytics develop continuously. Continuing education standards are done annually to ensure optimal focus on the essence of law enforcement analytics. Following the continuing education is the fourth standard of professional development. Professional development standard is aimed at maintaining professional development with the support of employers (Donald, 1998).
The fifth standard is the certification standard that provides certifications for professionals who have fulfilled the requirements of the first five standards. Certification is done by credible institutions including agencies and organizations that are specifically developed for analysts. These certifications motivate aspirants to improve their professionalism and create many levels of specialization in law enforcement analytics. A professional liaison standard is recommended to create associations among professionals in law enforcement analytics. The professional liaison standard is the sixth standard that was recommended by the NCISP. It is mean to bring professionals in the field together and gain support professional associations and bodies. Finally, analytic attributes standard provides a framework for the hiring and evaluation of law enforcement intelligence analysts. The standard is recommended to keep track of the performance of analysts so that they can be evaluated while seeking employment or when their performance is to be assessed (Peterson, 1998).
As recommended by NCISP, standards for professional products and or process are crucial in the development of effective products. A major product that needs high standards is intelligence. Through these standards, professional analysts can produce quality intelligence as required by professional associations and bodies. The first standard for analytic products or processes is the planning standard. Planning is recommended to optimize the output of analysts. Through planning, analysts can create high-quality products and process instead of haphazard activities that could result in low-quality products. The planning standard goes hand in hand with the direction standard. The two standards enable analysts to be sure of their practices in search for important information (INTERPOL, 1996). The standards give analysts an opportunity to prioritize some investigative measures thus analyzing law enforcement intelligence efficiently and effectively.
A collection standard is required for all analysts to utilize available resources effectively. The collection standards enable the analysts to collect and organize their resources properly. After collecting and organizing intelligence resources as stipulated in the collection standard, analysts are required to use the collection follow-up standard. This standard enhances follow-u of the information collected by analysts. Based on the collected information, they can decide on whether to use the information or embark on collecting additional information (Harris et al, 1976).
Legal constraints standard require all analysts to avoid incorporating raw data into analytic products if the data was gathered in a manner that may have violated laws. The standard protects the integrity of analytic products so that they do not compromise the efforts of analysts in performing law enforcement operations. The legality and appropriateness of the collected data can be evaluated using evaluation standard. The standard is used to assess all attributes of information collected by analysts to eliminate inappropriate data that may compromise the final analytic product (Parks & Marilyn, 2000).
Other standards for analytic products/process ensure the effectiveness of the analytic product. For instance, a collation standard calls for proper organization and formatting of raw data for easier and quicker retrieval by analysts. In other cases, an analytic accuracy standard is employed to justify the accuracy of the data represented in an analytic (Jack &Charles, 1983). Further accuracy of the analytic can be analyzed using a computerized analysis standard. The contents in the product are further analyzed using an analytic product content standard. Its outcomes are assessed through an analytic outcome standard. After success development of analytic product, it can be disseminated using a dissemination plan standard after which its report is presented using an analytic report standard (Parks & Marilyn, 2000). The analytic product can be developed and disseminated using other standards including product format, testimony, source attribution, feedback, and evaluation standards.
The standards presented in the document ensure that the final analytic product is of high quality and conforming to the standards of law enforcement analysis associations and bodies. The standards have existed in different documents, but the law enforcement and analytics standards document unified them into one document making it easier for reference by interested parties. The document is likely to capture the attention of public since it highlights the requirements of law enforcement analytics and analysts. It is also likely to sensitize the analysts to better their skills through continuous professional development.
Atkin, H, N.(2002). Continuing Professional Development Workbook and Portfolio, IALEIA.
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Criminal Intelligence System Operating Policies. (1993). 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23.20.
Counterdrug Executive Secretariat. (2000). General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan, U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Intelligence Committee. (1998). California Peace Officers’ Association, Criminal Intelligence Program for the Smaller Agency, revised edition,.
Frost, C. (1985). “Choosing Good Intelligence Analysts: What’s Measurable,” Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysis Digest, Vol. 1, No. 1,.
Global Intelligence Working Group (October, 2003). National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan.
Harris et al. (1976). The Basic Elements of Intelligence Revised, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,and E. Drexel Godfrey,
The Basic Elements of Intelligence (1971). Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
Donald M. (1998). Strategic Intelligence: Istana Enterprises.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (1998). National Law Enforcement Policy Center, Criminal Intelligence, updated June 2003.,
Law Enforcement Policy on the Management of Criminal Intelligence (1985).
International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts. (1997). Intelligence-Led Policing.
IALEIA and Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU). (2000). Revising the Basic Elements: Intelligence
INTERPOL, Crime Analysis Booklet. (1996). International Criminal Police Organization, Crime Analysis Working Group.
Jack M., & Charles F,. (1983). Police Intelligence Files,.
Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit, File Guidelines (2002).
National Criminal Intelligence Service UK. (2001). The National Intelligence Model.
Parks D, & Marilyn B, (2000 ). “Intelligence Reports,” Intelligence: Revising the Basic Elements.
Peterson, M,. (1998). Applications in Criminal Analysis, Greenwood Press.