Advertisement

Security Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 951–962 | Cite as

Effect of intelligence collection training on suspicious activity recognition by front line police officers

  • James L Regens
  • Nick Mould
  • Carl J Jensen III
  • David N Edger
  • David Cid
  • Melissa Graves
Original Article

Abstract

This study examines the impact of InCOP1 – Information Collection on Patrol, a training course that adopts a behavior-based approach to the identification of suspicious activities and behaviors, on information collection by front-line police officers. For this research, we developed a web-based instrument situational awareness assessment instrument to evaluate empirically the individual judgments of police officers drawn came from a cross-section of American state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies who previously completed InCOP1 training compared with those of officers who did not participate in that training. Study participants employed an 11-point Likert type scale to assess a series of subject matter expert-generated scenarios that emulated a mix of non-suspicious behaviors, generic suspicious behaviors, traditional criminal behaviors and terrorism-centric activities. The results based on 3036 individual judgments indicate trainees had enhanced ability to recognize suspicious activity (more true positives) when compared with officers who did not participate in InCOP1 training. This finding is consistent with criminology studies that suggest training affects police decision making generally and situational awareness specifically.

Keywords

intelligence collection intelligence-led policing suspicious activity recognition police training counterterrorism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Defense Intelligence Agency (PI: Regens) and the US Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate (PI: Regens). The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of DIA, DHS or the US government. We are unaware of any personal or institutional conflicts of interest with respect to financial interests or benefits in this research.

References

  1. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  2. Carter, D.L. (2005) Brief history of law enforcement intelligence. Trends in Organized Crime 8(3): 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends. American Sociological Review 44(4): 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014) Frequently asked questions, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs, accessed 17 April 2014.
  5. Groff, E.R. (2008) Adding the temporal and spatial aspects of routine activities: A further test of routine activity theory. Security Journal 21(1): 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hollinger, R.C. and Dabney, D.A. (1999) Motor vehicle theft at the shopping centre: An application of the routine activities approach. Security Journal 12(1): 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hollis, M.E., Felson, M. and Welsh, B.C. (2013) The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 15: 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hollis-Peel, M.E., Reynald, D.M., van Bavel, M., Elffers, H. and Welsh, B.C. (2011) Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law, and Social Change 56(1): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hollis-Peel, M.E., Reynald, D.M. and Welsh, B.C. (2012) Guardianship and crime: An international comparative study of guardianship in action. Crime, Law, and Social Change 58(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jensen, C.J. (2003) A test of Bounded Rationality in police investigative decision-making. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Jensen, C.J., Regens, J.L. and Griffin, N. (2013) Intelligence-Led policing as a tool for countering the terrorism threat. Homeland Security Review 7: 265–283.Google Scholar
  12. Keppel, G. and Wickens, T.D. (2004) Design and Analysis, 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International.Google Scholar
  13. Lenth, R.V. (2001) Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. American Statistician 55(3): 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leunga, S.-O. (2011) A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point likert scales. Journal Social Service Research 37(4): 412–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manunta, G. (1999) Terrorism and local law enforcement: A multidimensional challenge for the twenty-first century. Security Journal 12(1): 83–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, G. (2011) Terrorism and Homeland Security. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  17. McGarrell, E.F., Freilich, J.D. and Chermak, S. (2007) Intelligence-led policing as a framework for responding to terrorism. Journal Contemporary Criminal Justice 23(2): 142–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. (2012) InCOP1 – Information Collection on Patrol, (AWR-297, Participant Guide, Version 1.5.2) Oklahoma City, OK: MIPT.Google Scholar
  19. Pinizzotto, A.J., Davis, E.F. and Miller IIIC.E. (2004) Intuitive policing: Emotional/rational decision making in law enforcement. Law Enforcement Bulletin 73(20): 1–6.Google Scholar
  20. Pistole, J. (2006) Remarks before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco. San Francisco, CA, 11 September, http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-post-9-11-fbi-working-worldwide-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks, accessed 17 April 2014.
  21. Preston, C.C. and Colman, A.M. (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica 104(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reaves, B.A. (2011) Census of state and local law enforcement agencies. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf, accessed 12 May 2014.
  23. Regens, J.L., Jensen, C.J. and Edger, D.N. (forthcoming) Situational awareness as a cornerstone of terrorism threat characterization. Journal of Intelligence Analysis, in press.Google Scholar
  24. Reichardt, C.S. (2009) Quasi-experimental design. In: R.E. Millsap and A. Maydeu-Olivares (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Richardson, J.T.E. (1996) Measures of effect size. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 28(1): 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riley, K.J., Treverton, G.F., Wilson, J.M. and Davis, L.M. (2005) State and Local Intelligence in the War on Terrorism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  27. Roach, J., Ekblom, P. and Flynn, R. (2005) The conjunction of terrorist opportunity: A framework for diagnosing and preventing acts of terrorism. Security Journal 18(1): 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sherman, L.W. (1998) Evidence-Based Policing, Ideas in American Policing. Washington DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Sherman, L. W. and Eck, J. E. (2002) Policing for crime prevention. In: L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh and D. L. MacKenzie (eds.) Evidence-based Crime Prevention. New York: Routledge, pp. 295–329.Google Scholar
  30. Tyler, T. R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. US Senate. (2012) Federal Support for and Involvement in State and Local Fusion Centers. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • James L Regens
    • 1
  • Nick Mould
    • 1
  • Carl J Jensen III
    • 2
  • David N Edger
    • 3
  • David Cid
    • 4
  • Melissa Graves
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Intelligence and National Security, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences CenterOklahoma CityUSA
  2. 2.Center for Intelligence and Security StudiesMississippiUSA
  3. 3.3CI Consulting LLCChoctawUSA
  4. 4.Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, Homeland Security InstituteMidwest CityUSA

Personalised recommendations