Inside the shadows: a survey of UK human source intelligence (HUMINT) practitioners, examining their considerations when handling a covert human intelligence source (CHIS)

Abstract

Law enforcement agencies in the UK are embracing evidence-based policing and recognise the importance of human source intelligence (HUMINT) in the decision-making process. A review of the literature identified six categories likely to impact the handling of a covert human intelligence source (CHIS) or an informant: (a) handler personality traits; (b) informant motivation; (c) rapport; (d) gaining cooperation; (e) obtaining information, and (f) detecting deception. This study sought to identify which of these categories current HUMINT practitioners considered the most when planning and conducting a meeting with an informant. A bespoke online survey was designed and disseminated to 34 practitioners using purposive and snowball sampling. Directed content analysis and thematic content analysis were conducted. Results indicate that practitioners appear most concerned with gaining co-operation (d) and detecting deception (f). Results also found an inter-connectivity between the six categories, with informant handlers often having to balance competing requirements. Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords:

• content analysis
• covert human intelligence source
• evidence-based policing
• handler
• human intelligence
• informant
• intelligence
• law enforcement
• practitioner
• survey

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the current and former informant handlers who participated in this research for their invaluable contribution and insight.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Lee Moffett has declared no conflicts of interest.

Gavin E. Oxburgh has declared no conflicts of interest.

Paul Dresser has declared no conflicts of interest.

Steven J. Watson has declared no conflicts of interest.

Fiona Gabbert has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Newcastle University and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.