When it comes to managing intelligence and making the most of the concept of intelligence led policing an agency must build an effective system to manage the information to intelligence process. No intelligence management system can function properly without good policies and comprehensive procedures. The terms ’policy’ and ‘procedure’ are often used interchangeably again creating confusion among users. Throw in the term ‘guidance’ and it makes for a broken system. Understanding the difference in each is important if the agency is to avoid being left vulnerable to corruption, poor performance and public criticism. To begin, it is important to note that the law, be it federal state or local statute and any attendant documents cannot be surpassed by policy or procedures. While this may seem obvious it is surprising how many law enforcement policies are in conflict with legislation, normally because the policy has been written by someone who has not been trained in writing policies and procedures.

A policy is a statement of an agency’s intentions to discharge their obligations to the public in regard to a particular business area. It states an intention to carry out certain functions and provides parameters with regard to those functions. Policy establishes limits to action. They will of necessity be public documents, authorised by the Chief, and normally be brief in nature.

Procedures outline a method of performing an act or a manner of proceeding on a course of action. They differ from policy in that they direct a member how to act in a particular situation and how a specific task should be performed. Procedures must be comprehensive in nature and explain to the reader what they should do in the vast majority of circumstances they are likely to meet. Procedures are constructed from the knowledge of individuals operating in the business area. Formalising this knowledge means that good practice is identified and perpetuated long after such individuals have left the agency.  In procedures this knowledge is set out in a structured format agreed by senior management and goes a long way to eliminating mistakes that have been made in the past. One of the unfortunate aspects that occur in relation to procedures is that the reason why a particular procedure was put in place is often forgotten with the passage of time. Those currently involved then mistakenly believe that it is alright to deviate from or change that procedure without realising that they are removing a measure that was put in place to achieve a certain goal or to prevent a risk that would potentially materialise. Procedures should be linked to an agency’s discipline regulations so that members who deviate from them without cause can be held fully accountable and face consequences for their actions. However, procedures can be deviated from, but any member doing so must be held fully accountable for their actions and be expected to justify why they have done so. In order to protect covert methodology procedures should be protected from public availability. Where the interests of justice require disclosing part of a procedures document, the irrelevant content should be removed. Carelessness, in this respect by one agency, compromises the methodology for other agencies.

Guidance. Care should be taken if an agency is formally issuing guidance, particularly if that agency does not have good policy and comprehensive procedures. Guidance is not a substitute for either policy or procedure, and members will often justify their lack of adherence to guidance with words such as ‘It is only guidance!’ Guidance infers actions are optional.

While space here limits the amount of discussion that can be had in relation to policy, procedures and guidance the following points should be considered

• Good policy and comprehensive procedures are essential for effective intelligence management.

• Policy and procedures should only be written by a member trained in writing them; they are not easy to write well. Good spelling and grammar are important, and the use of unambiguous terminology is essential.

• Policies should be publicly available but procedures should be protected because they contain specifics about how law enforcement functions in sensitive business areas.

• National, State-wide and/or regional procedures provide greater resilience for an agency than stand-alone procedures. The sharing of knowledge and good practice between agencies means that the procedures are much more likely to stand up to outside scrutiny than something that is limited to one agency.

• When it comes to the depth of content, procedures should drill down into the weeds of how each task should be carried out. For example, if an agency’s procedures for managing human sources are only ten or twelve pages, more has been omitted than included, and mistakes will undoubtedly follow as a result.

If you want to know more about building and intelligence system that maximises the benefits for an agency and protects civil liberties get in touch. Email: info@Hsmtraining.com or take a look at our book on the subject See Publications.