OnPolicing Blog

 

Innovation is a powerful tool in law enforcement. Identifying what works and how best to use it can be a force multiplier, which is especially valuable as agencies face resource challenges.

When considering innovations in policing, technological advances rightfully come to mind. But that’s only part of the picture. To gain a full perspective, it’s helpful to briefly examine how an “innovation” is defined—and how innovations are advancing policing.

What Do We Consider Innovative?

In 1962, Dr. Everett M. Rogers published the first edition of his book Diffusion of Innovations, a widely acclaimed text about how innovations spread. Today, the text is in its fifth edition (2003), and it continues to be cited in most discussions of innovations and how they spread, including innovations in policing.

Rogers defines innovation as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption.” However, others point out what they see as flaws in this definition, namely the idea that an individual who finds something new can define it as an innovation when it is not new to anyone else (Matusiak & King, 2021). Instead, it is argued that something can be called innovative when it is considered new (not necessarily in time, but in practice) by the field of possible adopters, e.g., the field of policing. But getting unanimous agreement across the profession that something is new or previously untried in policing is something none of us would anticipate being quick or easy.

 

Rogers defines innovation as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption.”

Instead, we can resolve this by defining innovation in policing as ideas, practices, or objects that can reasonably be described as not widely implemented within the profession.

 

Instead, we can resolve this by defining innovation in policing as ideas, practices, or objects that can reasonably be described as not widely implemented within the profession. This definition doesn’t require unanimous or majority agreement and isn’t based solely on the views of one. Though we recognize that “innovations” are generally perceived as good or positive things, we don’t address that aspect here.

Process-Driven Innovation

With the “new to who?” aspect of innovation addressed, it’s helpful to reflect upon the types of ideas, practices, and objects that we often think about when it comes to innovations in policing.

After a brief review of the relevant literature, one thing is clear—we tend to favor technologies and programs over other forms of innovation, and this may leave a lot on the cutting room floor. This includes practices, procedures, and processes that offer important advantages, improvements, or solutions, even if only incremental ones.

The literature reflects our tendency to focus on innovations that some may categorize as “radical” or “silver bullets,” leading to major or organization-wide improvements in policing outcomes. This includes technological innovations—such as body-worn cameras, license plate readers, analytical and computing technologies—and major programmatic efforts, such as CompStat and community-oriented policing, when they were introduced.

 

…we tend to favor technologies and programs over other forms of innovation, and this may leave a lot on the cutting room floor.

 

We don’t deny that many of these technological innovations are still considered to be innovative by many, especially as the technologies advance. However, we shouldn’t overlook less publicized or less obvious innovations that can also be powerful.

Organic Innovations in the Field

Policing is full of solution-oriented people, and innovations are all around us. We can’t overlook the innovations that aren’t hardware or software-based, those that I’ll call “unplugged innovations” that still offer significant improvement and solutions that move the field forward.

Over time, innovations may expand or be leveraged to build other innovations. A great example of this can be found in the roots of the Crime Gun Intelligence Center (CGIC) concept or approach, which has now spread to over 55 cities and regions thanks to funding, training, and operational support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The CGIC approach generally features¹:

• a series of timely processes (e.g., agency policy and practice alignment, triage, and coordinated enforcement);
• technologies (e.g., NIBIN, eTrace, and, preferably, gunshot detection technologies); and
• people (relationships among local and regional law enforcement, including prosecutors, probation and parole, etc., and community support).

These elements all work together with one goal in mind—taking trigger pullers and their crime guns off the streets to prevent or reduce gun violence. This requires multiple agencies, roles, and resources to be highly coordinated and focused, but it’s a challenge well worth the effort if it can prevent the next shooting.

The CGIC concept isn’t new to those agencies using it to address serious gun violence, but it may be thought of as new to many others among the more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. And it didn’t start out in its current form.

The CGIC concept began when an ATF supervisory agent and a Denver Police Department commander worked together to develop a plan for improving gun crime investigations. The project would leverage data and ATF’s NIBIN—then considered an evidentiary tool used for and within crime labs—in a new way to pinpoint serial and previously unidentified gun offenders who were committing violence in Denver (Uchida, Ph.D. et al., 2020). With early successes, additional agencies in Denver and the surrounding region began to participate. Soon, other cities began replicating the success of what, at its core, started as an idea between two committed professionals to use an existing tool in a different way.

In the more than ten years since that idea was piloted, and with federal support, the CGIC concept has evolved with the input, insights, and experiences of others into a multi-element approach. Though causal evaluations using experimental designs have not been attempted due to the challenges associated with program design, quasi-experimental and other non-experimental evaluations and assessments have concluded that CGICs hold significant promise.

A recent article (DeBiasi, 2024) found “notable reductions” reported in some CGICs, including reductions in several firearm-related violent offenses. The article also noted increases in clearance rates for aggravated assaults with a firearm, nonfatal shootings, and other firearm-related violent offenses, among other qualitative and anecdotal success stories. Though these positive indicators have not been found in every CGIC evaluation or assessment, it’s important to point out that there have been significant differences in implementation quality and the rigor of evaluation, as well as challenges associated with the impacts of COVID and other crises experienced in the last five years.

What began as a relatively straightforward idea between two people who were relentless in their pursuit of reducing gun violence has further evolved with the input and experiences of others. Today, it is considered a promising or even “best” practice nationally and is perhaps one of the most significant operational contributions made possible with ATF support and leadership over the last ten years.

Innovation in Policing Isn’t New

The story of CGIC innovation is just one example from within policing and a relatively recent one at that. There is a long history of innovation in policing, and some of the earliest innovations continue to serve as foundational elements of modern policing.

O.W. Wilson’s account of the contributions of August Vollmer, considered the father of modern policing, details many innovations that Vollmer— who didn’t begin his professional life in policing—brought about in the early 1900s while serving as the chief of police in Berkeley, California. In fact, some of Vollmer’s ideas seemed so unusual that he was ridiculed for proposing them, including some that remain in practice today, such as bicycle patrols (Wilson, 1953).

How NPI Embraces and Promotes Innovation

The National Policing Institute has long focused on leveraging research and innovation to further excellence in policing. Those ideas come from within and from outside of policing. For example, an NPI publication series introduced in 1998 called Ideas in American Policing has provided a space for innovative ideas and thinking from policing scholars. Professor Lawrence Sherman’s Ideas in American Policing essay was the first published proposal of the concept of “evidence-based policing.”

NPI, through the Law Enforcement Knowledge Lab, is also preparing to launch an additional blog series called “Field Notes” that will feature recent innovations from within policing.

We believe that Vollmer and others like him who have challenged the status quo by proposing or doing something different in order to succeed have set examples that should be followed. And finally, the profession, sometimes alleged to be opposed to change, should be recognized as one that not only innovates but has and continues to do so from within. Those innovations from within just don’t get the credit and attention they often deserve.

 

 

[1] To see the actual CGIC workflow and essential elements, visit https://crimegunintelcenters.org/cgic-concept

---

References

De Biasi, Alaina. (2024). The impact of the Detroit Crime Gun Intelligence Center on fatal and nonfatal shooting clearance rates. Journal of Criminal Justice, 94. https://pceinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20240722-–-The-Impact-of-the-Detroit-Crime-Gun-Intelligence-Center.pdf

Matusiak, M. C., & King, W. R. (2021). Advancing the study of police innovation: Toward an empirical definition and classification of contemporary police innovations. Crime and Delinquency, 67(12), 1982–2010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720978726

Uchida, Ph.D., C. D., Swatt, M. L., Anderson, K., & Hock, S. (2020). Focus on gun violence: An evaluation of Denver’s CGIC and RAVEN programs. Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/focus-gun-violence-evaluation-denvers-cgic-and-raven-programs

Wilson, O. W. (1953). August Vollmer. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 44(1). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4112&context=jclc