Post on 21-Dec-2015
Intelligence Debriefing of Prisoners
• Not conducted to obtain:– Evidence of prisoner offending– Evidence against co-defendants– Research data
• Are conducted to:– Obtain intelligence – for action– Respond to intelligence gap/requirement– Scan population - approach prisoners– Some talk – some walk
Not Conventional Informants
• No legislation for this activity• Shorter relationship– Initial debrief + follow up
• Different motivation– Improved conditions, social factors– Limited finance
• Environment– Compromise, mismanagement = serious
consequences
Why Research this Subject?
• Human intelligence vital• Anecdotal success – but no evidence• Public sector austerity measures• Potential opportunities• 140 prisons – 85k prisoners• Captive audience• Criminality orchestrated in prison
Purpose of the Research
Establish from an evidence base:• Effectiveness–How successful is the tactic–How valuable is the intelligence– Is it a good use of resources
• Efficiency–Could it be more efficient– Improve the level of cooperation
Research Data218 Interview Documents
CHARACTERISTICS FREQUENCY PERCENT
MALES 186 85
FEMALE 32 15
BRITISH NATIONAL 144 66
FOREIGN NATIONAL 73 34
ETHNIC APPEARANCE WHITE
82 38
NON WHITE 135 62
RELIGION - CHRISTIAN 60 28
OTHER BELIEF 54 25
NOT RELIGIOUS 17 8
Offence for which Imprisoned
OFFENCE FREQUENCY PERCENT
SERIOUS VIOLENCE
73 33
DISHONESTY 48 22
FIREARMS 36 17
DRUGS 28 13
IMMIGRATION 15 7
SERIOUS SEXUAL 7 3
OTHER 11 5
Frequency Analysis - Cooperation
FREQUENCY PERCENTVALID NO 92 42.0
YES 124 57.0TOTAL 216 99.0
MISSING SYSTEM 2 1.0TOTAL 218 100.0
• Cooperation 57%• An effective use of limited resources?• Comparative analysis – literature• Prison environment - motivation
Intelligence – Volume and Value
CRIME CRIMINAL CONTEXTUAL ACTION
MURDER 1 1 0 1
FIREARMS 3 8 4 9
BURGLARY 1 2 5 2
DRUGS 2 6 1 6
ROBBERY 1 5 5 5
PRISON 2 4 7 6
OTHER 2 4 5 5
TOTAL 12 30 27 34
Improving Efficiency• Is it possible to improve cooperation?• Correlation analysis– Dependent variable ‘cooperation’– Independent variables
INTERVIEWERS GENDER PRISON CATEGORYPRISONERS GENDER LENGTH OF SENTENCE
AGE IMPRISONED > 4 YEARS
ETHNICITY CONVICTION OFFENCE
RELIGION OFFENCE - DRUGS
NATIONALITY CRIME STRATEGY
MOTIVATION PREVIOUS OFFENCES
Summary of Findings:
Age and Cooperation• Direct correlation between age and
cooperation (r=0.164, n=216, p=0.016)
• Negative relationship between ageing and delinquency
• Convicted criminals:– Older and more established– Play the system– Manipulate surroundings– Revenge on those responsible
Summary of Findings:
Gender and Cooperation• Greater cooperation with male only
interviewers (p=0.046)
• Male 61%, female 45%• Unsuccessful debriefs – culture and faith
issues• Female interviewing female – small sample
7/9 successful
• 55% male prisoners cooperated • 69% female prisoners cooperated
Summary of Findings
Offence and Cooperation• Conviction offence and cooperation (p=0.019)
• In prison for a drugs offence (p=0.015): 79% cooperated– Previous drugs conviction – no impact
• Convicted of serious sexual offence 6/7• Previous convictions and cooperation – no
relationship
Summary of Findings
Sentence and Cooperation• Relationship between prison sentence and
cooperation (p=0.032)
–Short sentence (up to 4 years) 59%–Over 4 years 68%– Indeterminate 73% (small sample)–Life 50%– ‘Other’ (immigration) 36%
Conclusions• Evidence to show that confidential
debriefing works• Evidence to show valuable intelligence is
collected across actionable and strategic areas
• Criteria identified that will improve level of cooperation
• But further research required