Intelligence-Led Policing Training Course

Participants can apply lawful, ethical and accountable controls to intelligence activity.

• Legality, necessity and proportionality tests for intelligence activity
• Purpose limitation and data minimisation in personal-data handling
• Human rights considerations in targeting, surveillance and information sharing
• Disclosure obligations separating intelligence handling from evidential processes
• Audit trails for collection, assessment, tasking and dissemination decisions
• Managing confirmation bias, discriminatory assumptions and unsupported targeting

Participants can translate command priorities into clear intelligence requirements and collection questions.

• Priority intelligence requirements derived from command objectives
• Specific intelligence requirements framed as answerable decision questions
• Indicators and warnings linked to emerging threat hypotheses
• Collection gaps identified against known facts and assumptions
• Requirements matrix assigning owners, deadlines and intended decisions
• Review triggers for changing priorities, risks and operational demand

Participants can plan proportionate collection and record information for later assessment.

• Collection plans matching sources to intelligence requirements
• Open-source intelligence boundaries, verification and evidential preservation
• Incident reports, crime records and calls-for-service as source material
• Partner-agency information sharing through agreed lawful protocols
• Structured information reports capturing who, what, when, where and why
• Collection logs recording gaps, actions, returns and outstanding enquiries

Participants can assess source reliability and information validity using a documented method.

• 3x5x2 evaluation codes for source, information and handling
• Reliability assessed from access, history, motive and corroboration
• Validity tested against internal consistency and independent evidence
• Separating observed facts, reported claims, inference and judgement
• Corroboration plans for significant allegations and operational decisions
• Evaluation statements recorded without overstating confidence or certainty

Participants can protect, share and disseminate intelligence according to need and risk.

• Handling codes matched to sensitivity, source risk and disclosure needs
• Need-to-know distribution lists for operational intelligence products
• Sanitisation techniques protecting sources while retaining decision value
• Dissemination records showing recipients, purpose, restrictions and review dates
• Information-sharing agreements defining lawful use and retention controls
• Breach escalation procedures for misdirected, compromised or inaccurate intelligence

Participants can use structured methods to produce transparent and challengeable analytical judgements.

• Key assumptions check before building an intelligence assessment
• Analysis of Competing Hypotheses for contested threat explanations
• Evidence matrices distinguishing supporting, contradicting and missing information
• Confidence statements calibrated to source quality and corroboration
• Alternative explanations considered before recommending operational action
• Peer challenge questions exposing gaps, bias and analytical overreach

Participants can identify repeat patterns, hotspots and series requiring focused policing responses.

• Crime series identification using modus operandi, time and location
• Repeat victimisation analysis for safeguarding and prevention priorities
• Hotspot mapping using incident density, harm and temporal patterns
• Near-repeat analysis identifying displacement and contagion risks
• Problem definition using victim, offender, location and behaviour factors
• Temporal analysis separating seasonal variation from emerging escalation

Participants can build a problem profile that supports targeted prevention and enforcement decisions.

• Problem profiles defining scale, harm, drivers and affected groups
• SARA model stages: scanning, analysis, response and assessment
• Problem statements bounded by geography, timeframe and recurring behaviour
• Contributory-factor analysis covering opportunity, guardianship and capability
• Response options balancing prevention, disruption, enforcement and safeguarding
• Measures of success linked to harm reduction and displacement checks

Participants can develop proportionate subject profiles from assessed intelligence and verified associations.

• Subject profiles combining identity, associates, activity, capability and risk
• Entity resolution checks preventing mistaken identity and duplicate records
• Association mapping distinguishing contact, kinship, business and criminal links
• Lifestyle indicators assessed without treating stereotypes as intelligence
• Target selection criteria based on harm, influence and intervention opportunity
• Profile review dates reflecting changing intelligence and legal authority

Participants can map relationships and identify significant actors, connections and vulnerabilities within networks.

• Link charts representing entities, relationships, events and attributed sources
• Network roles identified through brokerage, centrality and dependency patterns
• Association strength graded by frequency, reliability and corroboration
• Timeline charts connecting communications, incidents, movements and transactions
• Network vulnerabilities identified at facilitators, assets and communication points
• Chart annotations preserving source references, dates and analytical caveats

Participants can produce a strategic assessment that informs medium-term priorities and resource decisions.

• Strategic assessments addressing future threats, demand and capability gaps
• PESTLE scanning for political, economic, social, technological and legal drivers
• Trend analysis using multi-period crime, harm and service-demand data
• Scenario planning for plausible escalation, disruption and resource pressures
• Strategic risk registers ranking likelihood, impact, velocity and ownership
• Executive judgements linked to choices, investment and prevention priorities

Participants can produce tactical assessments that direct near-term interventions and operational activity.

• Tactical assessments focused on current threats, offenders and locations
• Weekly intelligence picture integrating incidents, investigations and partner reporting
• Target packages identifying objectives, risks, tactics and intelligence gaps
• Operational opportunities assessed against urgency, feasibility and expected harm reduction
• Control strategies assigning disruption, enforcement and safeguarding actions
• Review cycles measuring results, unintended consequences and emerging displacement

Participants can prepare and run intelligence-informed tasking decisions with accountable follow-through.

• Tasking and coordination groups structured around decisions and actions
• Meeting agendas separating information updates from decision items
• Decision logs recording rationale, authority, owner and completion date
• RACI assignments clarifying responsibility for intelligence and operational actions
• Escalation thresholds for high-harm, cross-border and multi-agency threats
• Post-tasking reviews testing whether actions answered intelligence requirements

Participants can develop proportionate recommendations that account for operational, legal and community risks.

• Risk matrices scoring likelihood, impact, vulnerability and control effectiveness
• Threat assessments distinguishing intent, capability, opportunity and target exposure
• Operational recommendations linked to assessed intelligence and decision authority
• Safeguarding considerations embedded within enforcement and disruption planning
• Community impact assessment before high-visibility or intrusive interventions
• Contingency actions prepared for intelligence failure, escalation and displacement

Participants can brief assessed intelligence clearly to operational and senior decision-makers.

• BLUF structure stating bottom line, judgement and required decision
• Briefing narratives separating facts, assessment, uncertainty and recommended action
• Visual exhibits using maps, timelines, charts and risk matrices
• Confidence language aligned with evidence quality and analytical limitations
• Question handling that distinguishes intelligence gaps from unsupported speculation
• Written executive summaries tailored to command-level decision requirements

Participants can assess whether intelligence activity improved decisions, outcomes and learning.

• Logic models linking intelligence inputs, actions, outputs and outcomes
• Performance measures tracking timeliness, relevance, quality and action completion
• Outcome evaluation separating activity counts from harm-reduction evidence
• After-action reviews identifying intelligence successes, failures and missed indicators
• Lessons logs assigning improvements to products, processes and training
• Quality assurance checklists for assessments, profiles and tasking submissions

Participants can coordinate intelligence work with partner agencies while protecting information and accountability.

• Multi-agency threat assessments aligning partners around shared priorities
• Information-sharing protocols defining purpose, permissions, retention and accountability
• Joint tasking arrangements coordinating police, safeguarding and regulatory actions
• Partner intelligence gaps translated into collection and referral actions
• Conflict resolution when agency priorities, authorities and risk tolerances differ
• Shared outcome measures for prevention, disruption and victim protection

Participants can build, review and present a complete intelligence package for a defined policing threat.

• Case brief interpreted into priorities, intelligence requirements and decision questions
• Source material evaluated using documented 3x5x2 assessment codes
• Problem or subject profile built from verified information and analysis
• Strategic or tactical assessment drafted with tested analytical judgements
• Tasking recommendation specifies actions, owners, controls and review measures
• Peer review challenges assumptions, legality, proportionality and evidential gaps
• Command briefing presents findings, uncertainty and recommended decisions