From Dragnet to Decision Engine: Intelligence-Led Policing in an Era of Data Abundance — i2 Group — February 19, 2026

By Staff Reports - February 19th, 2026

Law enforcement agencies are no longer debating whether data should inform policing decisions; the question now is whether institutions are organized to act on the data they already have. As intelligence-led models move from theory into daily operations, many state and local departments are discovering that success depends less on technology adoption than on leadership alignment, workforce design, and the ability to translate analytical insight into timely operational choices. That shift has raised new questions about how intelligence functions are staffed, funded, and governed as well as whether existing structures are suited to an environment where information arrives continuously and decisions must be made faster than ever.

This trend has placed intelligence-led policing under renewed scrutiny. While federal frameworks and policy guidance have long encouraged data-driven approaches, many state and local agencies continue to struggle with the practical realities of implementation: integrating disparate data sources, staffing analytical functions, securing sustained funding, and demonstrating impact in a domain where success is often invisible.

 In this BizTechReports executive Q&A, Roger Stokes, head of U.S. state, local, and education markets at i2 Group, examines how intelligence-led policing is evolving in practice. Drawing on his work with agencies across the country, Stokes discusses the operational bottlenecks created by data abundance, the growing role of real-time crime centers, the human capital constraints limiting analytic capacity, and the political and financial challenges of sustaining intelligence programs over time.

Rather than focusing on technology alone, the conversation highlights intelligence as a governance, workforce, and decision-making challenge; one that increasingly shapes how law enforcement organizations allocate resources, manage risk, and define success.

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS

Vidcast Interview with/ Roger Stokes, i2 Group

BTR: For decades, intelligence-led policing has been encouraged by federal guidance, yet adoption at the local level has often lagged. From your perspective, what is the core strategic challenge agencies face today?

Roger Stokes: The biggest challenge is no longer access to information—it’s what to do with it once you have it. Years ago, analysts spent most of their time trying to find data. Today, they’re overwhelmed by it. They spend the majority of their time managing data rather than analyzing it. That inversion fundamentally changes how agencies need to think about intelligence.

Strategically, many departments still approach intelligence as a supporting function rather than a core operational capability. They recognize the value of data-driven policing in principle, but they haven’t fully internalized what it takes organizationally to make that work at scale. Intelligence is often discussed as a tool or a system, rather than as a discipline that requires structure, staffing, and sustained leadership attention. 

There’s also a tendency to underestimate how much change is required. Intelligence-led policing isn’t just about adding new data sources. It affects how agencies set priorities, how they evaluate risk, and how they measure success. Without that broader strategic alignment, intelligence efforts remain fragmented, even when the technology is available.

BTR: How does that shift affect the way leadership should think about intelligence-led policing as a strategic priority?

Stokes: It requires leadership to move beyond viewing intelligence as something that happens after the fact. Intelligence now needs to be embedded into decision-making at multiple levels—command staff, operations, and even patrol. That’s a cultural change, and cultural change is always harder than technology change.

Leaders also need to recognize that intelligence supports more than investigations. It informs policy decisions, deployment strategies, and resource allocation. When intelligence is treated as episodic—activated only during major incidents or special operations—it never develops the continuity needed to be effective.

 Another strategic issue is generational. Younger analysts entering law enforcement often arrive with strong data skills and comfort with complex systems, but their expertise isn’t always reflected in policy or command-level discussions. Agencies that find ways to incorporate that knowledge into strategic planning tend to adapt more quickly than those that rely solely on traditional hierarchies.

OPERATIONAL IMPERATIVES

 BTR: Much of today’s investigative data doesn’t originate in police systems at all. How is that changing day-to-day operations?

Stokes: That’s one of the biggest operational shifts we’re seeing. Data now comes from everywhere—vehicles, consumer electronics, smart infrastructure, private security systems. These weren’t designed for law enforcement use, but they’re increasingly central to investigations.

Operationally, this creates challenges long before analysis begins. Agencies have to figure out how to access the data, whether they’re legally permitted to use it, how reliable it is, and how it fits into an evidentiary framework. That takes time, coordination, and expertise.

In many departments, especially smaller ones, those responsibilities fall on sworn officers or senior leaders who already have operational duties. As a result, intelligence work competes with everything else they’re responsible for. That’s where bottlenecks emerge—at the very front end of the intelligence cycle, when speed and clarity matter most. 

BTR: Real-time crime centers have emerged as a way to bring these streams together. What problem are they actually solving?

Stokes: RTCCs are designed to provide situational awareness by consolidating information in real time. They bring together video feeds, dispatch data, license-plate readers, sensors, and other inputs so agencies can support officers responding to incidents as they unfold.

In that sense, they address a very real operational problem: fragmentation. Before RTCCs, information often lived in separate systems that didn’t communicate well with each other. Bringing that data together can significantly improve response and officer safety.

But integration is the hard part. Voice systems, video platforms, private-sector data, and public infrastructure were never designed to work together. Even when agencies succeed in collapsing those silos, a second-order problem emerges: who manages the data once it’s unified, and how quickly can insight be extracted and acted upon?

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

BTR: Intelligence capabilities require sustained investment, yet many agencies rely on grants. How does funding shape success or failure?

Stokes: Intelligence programs can’t be built on one-time funding. They require continuity—both in technology and in people. When agencies treat analytics as an episodic investment, it becomes very difficult to demonstrate long-term impact. That, in turn, undermines political and budgetary support.

We often see departments invest in tools without fully accounting for staffing, training, or governance. When the initial funding runs out, the capability erodes, and leadership is left questioning whether the investment delivered value. That cycle makes it harder to justify future spending.

Sustained investment doesn’t necessarily mean unlimited budgets. It means planning for intelligence as an ongoing function, with predictable costs and clear objectives. Agencies that do that are better positioned to show progress over time, even when outcomes are preventative rather than visible.

BTR: How early should funding conversations happen? 

Stokes: They should happen at the very beginning. Budget constraints are often the first issue agencies raise, and that’s understandable. But those conversations often reveal that many departments aren’t fully aware of the range of funding avenues available to them.

Grant literacy has become an operational competency. Understanding how to align intelligence initiatives with federal, state, nonprofit, or private funding streams is critical. As more agencies pursue intelligence-led strategies, competition for those funds will increase. Agencies that can articulate integrated plans—covering technology, staffing, governance, and oversight—are more likely to secure sustained support.

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

BTR: At the tactical level, how is analytics changing operational decision-making?

Stokes: Analytics increasingly inform how agencies deploy scarce resources. Pattern analysis can reveal when certain activities are most likely to occur, based on historical behavior. That allows agencies to narrow surveillance or response windows and deploy teams more deliberately.

This isn’t about predicting crimes in a speculative way. It’s about understanding patterns—timing, location, frequency—and using that information to make smarter decisions. Instead of deploying resources for extended periods with limited results, agencies can focus their efforts where they’re most likely to be effective.

BTR: You’ve said, “Logistics matter.” What do you mean by that?

Stokes: Logistics refers to the practical mechanics of policing—how many officers or analysts you have, where they’re positioned, how long they can remain deployed, and what other demands are competing for their time. Data helps leaders make informed decisions within those constraints.

Behavior analysis, in this context, doesn’t attempt to predict crimes before they happen. It examines historical patterns to support precision planning. The goal is efficiency rather than foresight—deploying resources deliberately, then redeploying them as conditions change. That’s often where agencies see the most immediate operational payoff.

BizTechReports Conclusion

The evolution of intelligence-led policing reflects a broader shift underway across state and local government: data is no longer scarce, but capacity is. As agencies contend with expanding digital evidence, fragmented systems, and rising expectations for transparency, intelligence has become less about technology adoption and more about organizational readiness.

The conversation with Roger Stokes underscores that intelligence effectiveness depends on alignment—between strategy and operations, funding and staffing, prevention and accountability. Real-time crime centers, advanced analytics, and new data sources can accelerate decision-making, but only if agencies invest in the people and governance structures required to sustain them.

Perhaps the most difficult challenge remains measurement. When intelligence works, nothing happens—and proving the value of prevention is inherently difficult. Yet, as Stokes notes, the alternative is perpetual reaction. For law enforcement leaders, the question is no longer whether intelligence-led models will shape the future, but whether institutions can evolve fast enough to make them work.

EDITOR’s NOTE: To Learn More i2 Group and their role in state and local intelligence-led initiatives click here.