Cody W. Telep
George Mason University (USA)
6 July 2011

 “Although criminal investigation is a fundamental mission of the police, there has been surprisingly little scientific inquiry in this area” (Horvath et al., 2001)
 Evidence-Based Policing Matrix: only 2 of the 103 total abstracts mention “detective”
 In the U.S., detectives make up about 16% of sworn officers, but we know very little about the effectiveness of their actions, even though they play a major role in one major performance measure of the police, clearance rates

 “Though widely acknowledged as vital to law enforcement, social scientists have largely ignored the practice of confidential informing.” (Miller, 2011: 203)
 Evidence-Based Policing Matrix: only 1 of the 103 total abstracts mentions “informant” or “informer”
 Some focus on cost-effectiveness, but research largely descriptive and focused on issues of threatened legitimacy as a result of close police contact with known criminals

 High internal validity- would give us new insights into investigations and informers that are more believable than existing research
 Helps inform policing practice and policy- would provide a better sense of what works (and what doesn’t) in terms of informer practices to increase intelligence, increase clearances, and reduce crime
 Provide a “simple” answer for police leaders- statistics behind experiments are not exceedingly complex

 Although there are potential ethical concerns, experimentation is possible in the case of recruiting and managing police informers
 Treatment (i.e. investigator time) is limited and so randomization could provide an unbiased way of using resources


Not conducting any rigorous research is perhaps just as badcurrent practices are often based on informal policies or hunches that could be wrong
Nothing about an experiment would need to threaten the confidentiality of informers

 Recruitment experiments
 Examining how different approaches to recruiting informers lead to differential outcomes in terms of number of informers recruited, amount of intelligence gathered, cases solved, and crime prevented
 Management experiments
 Examining how different approaches to managing informers lead to differential outcomes in terms of intelligence gathered, cases solved, and crime prevented

 Experiments on informers could be carried out on multiple levels of analysis
 Perhaps the most obvious is at the level of the individual informer- randomly allocating potential or current informers
 Could randomly allocate administrative units (e.g. prisons)
 Could randomly allocate geographic areas within a jurisdiction
(e.g. drug markets)

 Number of informers recruited and level of informer cooperation (legitimacy)
 Amount of usable intelligence gathered
 Number of cases solved (clearance rates)
 Crime prevented (crime rates)
 Costs and cost-effectiveness

1.
Recruiting informers in a prison/jail setting
2.
Managing informers through interview/questioning techniques
3.
Recruiting and managing informers in crime hot spots




Examine traditional informal methods of choosing who to recruit vs. use of research to guide recruitment policies
Example: randomly assign prisoners to either a control group (traditional methods) or a treatment group that uses statistical evidence (e.g. the findings of Jeffrey, 2011) to guide recruitment procedures
Outcomes


Proportion of prisoners successfully recruited
Amount of usable intelligence gathered

 Cooper’s (2010) work suggests that many who agree to be informers while in custody cease to be cooperative upon release
 Could develop experiments to examine ways to better keep recruited informers committed to providing intelligence


The impact of how investigators interact with informers
(procedural justice)
The impact of bureaucratic control systems (particularly on how intelligence is gathered and shared)



Incorporate Tyler’s (1990, 2004) research on legitimacy and procedural justice into informer management procedures
Control group that receives “standard” interviews from detectives
 E.g. may involve deception, typically more confrontational
 Treatment group is interviewed by detectives who have received special training on procedural justice and enhancing police legitimacy
 E.g. interviewing should focus on detective being respectful, transparent, unbiased

 There could be differences across the groups in levels of long-term informer cooperation/compliance with police
 Tyler’s research would suggest that a procedural justice framework might enhance informer cooperation
 Could also measure informer perceptions of legitimacy of the police
 Ideally, if legitimacy levels are enhanced, these informers may avoid future involvement in criminal activity




Hot spots policing has a strong evidence base for reducing crime and disorder (Braga, 2007)
Would combining hot spots enforcement with an explicit effort to recruit informers increase crime control effectiveness?
3 group experimental study of hot spots (e.g. drug markets, gun crime areas):



Control group: receives standard policing as usual
“Standard” hot spots group: receives intensive policing
Informer hot spots group: receives intensive policing AND explicit focus on recruiting and maintaining informers in the hot spot areas



Officers working in the informer hot spots group could receive additional training on managing informers and incentives to maximize informer recruitment and intelligence gathering
Outcomes:


Would expect informer hot spots group to lead to increases in intelligence gathered and informers recruited
Could examine experimentally whether there were differences in crime and disorder outcomes across the three groups

 Little or no rigorous evidence related to recruiting and managing police informers
 There are a number of ways we can think about running randomized experiments on informers
 Experimentation is an important way to ensure informer policies are as effective and efficient as possible