4th International Evidence Based Policing Conference

Prisoner Debriefing

An Evidence Based Approach

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

4th International Evidence Based Policing Conference

Prisoner Debriefing

An Evidence Based Approach