4th International Evidence Based Policing Conference

“A captive audience.” Recruiting informants within police custody

blocks.

Richard Cooper

Objectives

• Why do people offer information?• The cells as a recruiting ground• The longevity of recruitments• Are some motivations more sticky than

others?

Limitations of previous research

• Dearth of experimental research in this area.– Most commonly third party interviews– Rarely direct access to informants– Criminals giving their opinions– Examination of records

• Difficult to establish motivation – Cost, risk, management etc.

• Much easier to be retrospective

Methodology• 14 week period• Custody block for medium-sized city• Administer questionnaire at point of accepting

referral to Source Handling Unit– Motives– Supporting information

• Examination of police records• Observation of process taking place• 2 dedicated officers• Follow-up of cohort at two points– Initial contact and 4 weeks afterwards

Methodology - Motives• Money• Reduced Sentence• Excitement• Guilt• Revenge• See how police use informants• Remove criminal competition• Sense of responsibility to others• Dislike of a particular crime• Other

Methodology – Subsidiary Information

• Certainty • Length of time• Treatment in cells• Adherence to law

• Police data– Demographic– Criminal

Findings – Provision of Intelligence

• Surprising willingness to provide intelligence and accept onward referral

• Not explicable by naivety or inexperience• Significant relationship with acquisitive crime

custody event– Desperation / drugs

• Women potentially more likely to cooperate• Situational factors important

Findings - Motivation• Multiple motivations• Money and the chance of a reduced sentence

are the most common• Money closely linked to those in custody for

acquisitive crimes• Revenge, excitement, responsibility to others,

and dislike of crime also evident

Findings – Continuing to inform• Substantial drop-out rate for prospective

informants• Varied reasons for failing to continue• Acquisitive crime no longer significant• Those primarily motivated by money less likely

to respond to initial follow-up– Not affected by financial predicament

Findings – Continuing to inform

• Those with a motivation not born of self-interest may be more likely to persist

• Co-existence between dislike of a certain crime and sense of responsibility– More certain of the decision– Prepared to do so for longer– More embedded than transitory

• Dislike of drugs features prominently– Links to our informant population?

Conclusions• Debriefing in the cells should be seen as an end in

itself– High drop-out rate– Acquisitive crime– Women

• Understanding of the range of motivations is largely accurate

• Self-interest does not appear to be sufficient– Those not motivated by self-interest may be the most

‘sticky’