Intelligence-led policing?
My experience in the USA was that intelligence meant an analyst preparing reports for management or within a specialist unit conducting research. There are examples of a different approach, see this thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=12979
'Intelligence-led policing' (ILP) was a mantra starting approximately fifteen years ago here in the UK, with a 'National Intelligence Model' (NIM) and sold to politicians as a new, cost-effective method of tackling volume crime (burglary and vehicle crime notably). The main theme of this ILP was to target the most active criminals, invariably using informants, surveillance, forensic science and investigation.
ILP led to a large investment in I.T., in the UK rarely linked up (about to change) and critical reports years later questioning if had been effective. ILP made claims that it was responsible for reductions in volume crime that were countered by outsiders citing better security, a smaller group of young offenders and that many crimes were not reported / recorded.
The police have always used recording and detection rates as the key indicator of performance. This emphasis in the UK became known as 'Key Performance Indicators' (KPI) and was driven by national government, seeking ever better performance in volume crime and particularly violent crime, mainly street robbery.
What had been the mantra of ILP became KPI-policing with intelligence as some management-driven tool.
ILP can be more pro-active and serve the wider public interest if requirements are clearer and not just reflecting local police management priorities - which are often not those of the public (incidentally I found US LE better tuned in on this point).
Bookmarks