Intelligence-Led Policing in New Zealand

Abstract

The innovation life cycle within police organisations is poorly understood. This is despite 30 years of calls for police reform and numerous efforts to introduce radical innovation. Difficulties are associated with all major reform movements, including community-oriented, problem-oriented and intelligence-led policing (ILP). Significant levels of resistance to change are routinely encountered. We need to know more about the processes and factors associated with strategic innovation and change within police organisations. This thesis analyses the emergence of ILP within the New Zealand Police (NZP). I identify the key organisational, environmental and individual factors associated with the development of ILP; the interactions amongst these factors and their impact on the ILP innovation life cycle. I interviewed key participants and observers and surveyed police officers at four research sites within the NZP that exemplified high and low levels of ILP innovation. I found that multiple nodes of leadership and individual leaders emerged as critical to initiating and sustaining the innovation life cycle. Managers’ superordinate commitment to crime reduction goals was vital to sustained innovation. Specific management arrangements supported innovation. Transformational leadership and participative and informal management processes stimulated the development of ILP. The effective use of technology, competent technical and social implementation of ILP, and development of innovation-friendly environments were also key factors supporting innovation. Individual-level factors are central to the emergence of ILP. I found that strong innovation uptake is grounded in high levels of individual officer knowledge of ILP, commitment to ILP and awareness of supervisor’s prioritising of ILP. These features translated into officer willingness to commit discretionary time to ILP and perform ILP behaviours. I also identified interactions between innovation and environmental factors. Healthy relations with local government are associated with innovation, and the adoption of ILP shapes positive officer attitudes to the local environment and weakens the influence of neighbourhood factors on officer behaviour. Strong innovation is associated with officer perception of more manageable demand for police services and less complex and more stable operational environments. Officer resistance to change was seated in specialist groups and emerged where internal leadership networks of sufficient depth and breadth could not be established. Resistance was also associated with poor change management, weak technical implementation of ILP, and a failure to develop individual officer knowledge of and commitment to ILP. My study has theoretical implications and identifies key focus areas for policy-makers who want to encourage public sector innovation. The goal setting of managers, multiple nodes of leadership, a concentration on critical factors and achieving key thresholds are especially important for successful innovation. In addition, a superordinate commitment to crime reduction stimulates both the development of ILP and the emergence of continuous innovation. Continuous innovation leads managers to address wider organisational barriers to effective police practice. Furthermore, at strong uptake sites these factors coalesced into a system of innovation focused on crime reduction. Overall, my study shows that despite significant challenges, police organisations can achieve both ILP innovation and continuous innovation.