Key attributes of an effective human source handler: Implications for handler selection and training

Abstract

Despite the importance of human source intelligence very little has been written about the selection of police officers to undertake the specialist role of handler, and approaches to training in this specialist area. This research examined the nature of handling and the core attributes of effective human source handlers as perceived by 22 experienced handlers. Participants described handling as characterised by relationship alliance, task alliance and technique. Participants also identified attributes associated with the effective handling of human sources. Findings have important implications for the selection and training of officers for the role of human source handler.

Keywords

Confidential human source informant covert human intelligence source handler

Introduction

Information derived from individuals who are involved in the criminal environment can be of significant value to policing agencies in the prevention and detection of crime. Although different terms are applied across policing jurisdictions (e.g., snitch, informant, covert human intelligence source), a human source is an individual who enters a formal relationship with police in order to provide information about the criminal environment (Crous, 2009; Innes, 2000). Despite the potential value of information derived from human sources, there is significant risk associated with their use (Amir, 2003; Billingsley, 2004; Cooper and Murphy, 1997; Dunnighan and Norris, 1998; Rosenfeld et al ., 2003). Risk might be social and personal harm to the human source if their identity was to become known; risk to the handler with regard to manipulation, misconduct/corruption and personal safety; and risk to the agency, with regard to organisational corruption and statutory/regulatory responsibility for ensuring the safety of the human source and the handler (Clark, 2001; Harfield, 2012). Related to this risk is the fact that very little has been written about 1) the selection of police officers to fulfill the specialist role of handler, and 2) approaches to training in specialist areas, such as the recruitment and management of human sources. Selection and recruitment practices are critical in managing the risk associated with human source work (Billingsley, 2004; Crous, 2010; Dunninghan and Norris, 1998).

Little consideration has also been afforded to the purpose of police training in this area. Although training is traditionally viewed as a means of fostering skill acquisition and development, in this high-risk, specialist area of policing, training is often structured and used as a vehicle to select those most suited to the role of human source handler (Girodo, 1997). Given the unique role of training in this area, it is important to ensure that selection processes are informed by an understanding of the core attributes required to perform the role, and that training programmes subsequently cultivate the development of those attributes. This approach may increase the likelihood of selecting those best able to fulfil the role, in addition to adequately preparing them for work in this high-risk context. In this paper, the nature of human source handling is described from the perspective of experienced human source handlers. Then, the core attributes (e.g., skills, abilities and dispositional attributes) required to recruit and manage human sources are identified. Qualitative data were derived from experienced handlers from policing agencies in Australia and New Zealand. Findings provide preliminary evidence from which selection processes and training programmes can be developed.

Definition of term ‘handler’

Before discussing the key attributes of a human source handler, it is important to first consider what is meant by the term ‘handler’. The term is rarely defined within legislation, or the empirical body of literature. Instead, definitions are implied by reference to an individual responsible for managing or ‘handling’ the human source. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) details national standards to be applied by all UK police forces in the use and management of covert human intelligence sources (CHIS). According to RIPA (2000) Section 26 (8):

A person is a CHIS if:

he establishes or maintains a personal or other relationship with a person for the covert purpose of facilitating the doing of anything falling within paragraph (b) or (c);

he covertly uses such a relationship to obtain information or to provide access to any information to another person; or

he covertly discloses information obtained by the use of such a relationship, or as a consequence of the existence of such a relationship.

Section 29(5a) of RIPA implicitly defines a handler as an officer charged by the policing agency with dual responsibility for managing the day-to-day activities of the CHIS and for protecting the CHIS.

No equivalent national standard exists in Australia or New Zealand. Instead, policing agencies incorporate the elements documented in RIPA (2000) and develop definitions specific to their jurisdiction. Also developed at the agency level is the process by which a human source is classified as low, medium or high risk, and allocated to the most appropriate handler for management purposes (WA Police, 2015).

The varied nature of handling

The implicit assumption of parity when applying a role definition (e.g., handler) can be problematic when consideration is given to the varied contexts within which handlers work, and the fact that the definition of the term is fundamental to an understanding of the nature of the role performed by the human source handler. For example, handlers work in a variety of agencies; state-based policing agencies, national and international security agencies and military agencies. Within a state-based police agency, the handler may be a Detective, intermittently working with a ‘low risk’¹ human source in a local policing district. Alternatively, the handler may work in a dedicated source unit (DSU) running ‘high risk’ human sources on a full-time basis. Whilst there are likely to be similarities across the work of each type of handler, there are also likely to be vast differences. For example, when working with ‘high risk’ human sources within a DSU, the focus of handlers is typically on ‘cold recruits’ (i.e., the strategic identification and targeting of potential human sources), high-level human sources (i.e., individuals embedded within a criminal network), long-term relationships with human sources (i.e., protected relationships and protracted investigations) and high-level offences (i.e., drug manufacture and distribution, murder). When working with ‘low risk human sources’ within a local policing district, the focus is typically on opportunistic recruitment (e.g., of detainees), lower-level offences (i.e., drug dealing, burglary), lower-level sources (i.e., individuals external to, or on the periphery of a criminal network) and short-term relationships with human sources to target local priorities.

Variation in the context and nature of ‘handling’ have significant implications in terms of human source management training structures and expectations in terms of a handler’s mastery of particular aspects of tradecraft. For example, DSU handlers are exposed to the highest level of training available within the policing jurisdiction and are expected to exemplify the highest level of skill and capability in all aspects of human source recruitment and management. Officers working in local policing districts receive substantially less specialist training and so expectations regarding skill sets are substantially reduced. Differences in handler roles and subsequent implications for training (i.e., levels, content and methods of training) raise questions as to how officers are selected to undertake this specialist role, how training is undertaken in this specialist area of policing, and what evidence base exists to inform both the selection and training of human source handlers.

The current evidence base: Informing handler selection and training

Very little empirical evidence exists regarding the high-risk area of human source handling. This differs substantially to research from related specialist policing roles such as undercover work, where significant attention is placed on developing an understanding of officer suitability for the role. Since World War II in North America and Europe, the recruitment and selection of undercover officers has occurred in assessment centres responsible for identifying suitable undercover agents (Girodo, 1997). Although the first assessment centre in 1948 screened officers on the basis of broad characteristics (e.g., ‘effective intelligence, security, social relations, energy and initiative, emotional stability, motivation and leadership’), focus soon shifted to the identification of specific attributes and valid measures of the same (Girodo, 1997: 239; Gowan and Gatewood, 1995; Grant and Grant, 1996; Hibler, 1995; Miller, 2004; Scrivner, 1999; Twersky-Glasner, 2005).

Within the body of empirical literature, characteristics of effective undercover officers have been defined as sound interpersonal skills and judgment, a calm disposition when encountering a stressful situation (Hibbler, 1995; MacLeod, 1995), sound planning and preparation (Anderson et al., 1995), and cover identity and target profiling (Miller, 2006). Even within the context of detective work, research has focused on identifying the characteristics of effective detectives. Those characteristics are the ability to communicate, high motivation and thoroughness (Westera et al ., 2016). This highlights a shift in training from adherence to policy and procedure (i.e., these are the steps to follow to achieve an effective investigation), to fostering the skills and attributes of officers relevant to particular roles. Although these policing roles are fundamentally different to human source handling, it is possible to extrapolate some of the principles from undercover policing given that the handler is essentially preparing the human source for undercover work, and subsequently managing that work. Modelling of core attributes forms a significant component of such instruction. The absence of research considering the core attributes that render a handler effective emphasises a gap in both theory and subsequent recruitment practices, an issue also emphasised by Cordner and Scarborough (2010).

In terms of research that is explicitly focused on handling, findings emphasise the importance of handlers developing a firm understanding of human source motivation (Lieberman, 2007). This is because an understanding of source motivation impacts significantly on the efficacy of the recruitment and management tactics employed by the handler and the sustainability of the source/handler relationship. This small body of research has shown that human sources can be motivated by money, revenge, the wish to eliminate competition, the desire to have police seek leniency in terms of current charges (Billingsley, 2001), fear of police, greed, altruism and the desire to build self-esteem (Williams and Guess, 1981). This body of research also shows that human source motivation changes across time and that a handler needs to be cognisant of current motivation to effectively supervise and control a human source (Billingsley, 2001). What is yet to be considered is the notion of multiple motivators co-occurring at any one point in time, and the changing nature of motivation across time.

In terms of tradecraft², it is acknowledged that handlers must understand, and be able to execute, the skills that enable the conduct of effective cold recruits and the safe management of human source activity/work (e.g., cover stories and defensive surveillance; South, 2001). Despite this acknowledgment, very little research has examined the nature of tradecraft associated with human source recruitment and management. This can be attributed to the perceived need to protect attributes of tradecraft in this sensitive and confidential area of policing (South, 2001). What has been documented indicates that handlers need to master particular tactics that ensure safe engagement with human sources (e.g., defensive surveillance), and safe human source tasking and coordination (e.g., target profiling and rules of engagement such as ceasing criminal activity; Turcotte, 2008; Crous et al ., 2005). Research also indicates that the nature of the relationship between the human source and handler is fundamental to positive outcomes (South, 2001) and that effective relationships are characterised as being professional and reciprocal (Billingsley, 2004) and are based on mutual trust and respect (May and Hough, 2001). Research has also emphasised the importance of handlers developing a firm understanding of potential ethical issues associated with human source and handler relationships and the governance frameworks designed to oversee the work of the handler and the human source (Dunningham and Norris, 1998; Williamson and Bagshaw, 2001).

Core attributes of an effective handler

Although the body of research considering what a handler needs to know to perform the role effectively is growing, there is still a need to determine what attributes a police officer requires to be an effective handler (e.g., skills, abilities and dispositional attributes). To focus exclusively on the knowledge required to perform the role assumes that once knowledge is acquired via training, a police officer has the capacity to effectively handle a human source. Therefore, handling can be performed by any police officer on the completion of a training programme designed to foster skill acquisition. What has not yet been considered is that some core attributes may be less amenable to traditional approaches to training. Given the need for knowledge in this area, this research examined experienced handler perceptions of the nature of human source handling, as well as core attributes required to work effectively as a human source handler (in the context of state policing agencies).

Method

Approach to research

Given the exploratory nature of this research, qualitative research techniques were applied within a generic qualitative design (Patton, 2002; Percy et al ., 2015) to identify experienced handler perceptions of the core attributes of effective human source handlers. A generic qualitative design is argued to be appropriate when the purpose of the research is to simply understand a perspective, the research question is more suited to a qualitative as opposed to quantitative design, and traditional approaches do not fit (e.g., the focus is not lived experience as with phenomenology, or theory building as with grounded theory; Merriam, 2009). The current research was ‘outward’ in focus, requiring experienced handlers to draw on their experiences within the domain of handling, to enable the development of a rich description of the nature of handling and the attributes required to be an effective handler.

Qualitative methods were incorporated as a data collection tool. Such methods facilitate understanding of participant perspectives and place emphasis on how participants interpret their experiences (Bellamy et al ., 2016; Merriam, 2009). More specifically, semi-structured interviews were conducted with DSU-trained human source handlers and human source managers, who were identified by their respective policing agencies as experienced handlers. The semi-structured interview enabled interviews to address a consistent set of questions while still allowing for spontaneity and in-depth probing regarding identified core attributes (Berg, 2007). Policing agencies within Australia and New Zealand participated in this research.

Given the geographical spread of participants, and Human Research Ethics Committee conditions of approval, semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone. Questions guiding the interview process targeted perceptions of the aims of human source handling and the core attributes required to be an effective human source handler. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A standard thematic analysis was applied to facilitate the development of a rich description (Liamputtong, 2009) of experienced handler perceptions of the core attributes of effective human source handlers. This method of analysis involved reading transcripts a number of times, coding significant information, note taking and identifying common themes and representative quotes, which were then taken to another level of analysis as experienced handler perceptions became apparent. At this stage, findings were situated within the existing research literature (Braun and Clarke, 2008, Patton, 2002). The University Human Research Ethics Committee approved the conduct of this research.

Participants

The final sample consisted of 22 DSU-trained, experienced handlers from Australia (N = 17) and New Zealand (N = 5). The mean age of participants was 43.27 years (SD = 8.13; range 29–57 years). One participant was female and the remainder were male. Participant rank ranged from Senior Constable to Superintendent. In terms of policing experience, the sample had an average of 20.23 years’ (SD = 8.07) policing experience and an average of 9.52 years’ (SD = 5.70) experience managing human sources. All participants had acquired their experience managing human sources at the local level and/or within a DSU.

Findings and interpretations

The nature of handling

The perceptions of experienced handlers regarding the core attributes of effective human source handlers need to be understood within the context of their described experience of handling in terms of both recruiting a human source, and managing the work of a human source. Handlers described the nature of human source handling as being characterised by three core elements; 1) alliance; which consisted of relationship alliance (bond and attachment) and task alliance (engagement rules), 2) technique (methods described as guiding the work of the human source) and 3) moderating variables (events/actions described as disrupting the work of the human source). Although the focus of handling was described as being different for the recruitment of a human source and the management of a human sources work, the key elements of alliance, technique and moderating variables were described similarly. For example, during recruitment, the alliance is being negotiated, but is still characterised by a balance of agendas. Therefore, the elements of alliance, technique and moderating variables, and the relationships between them, were described as characterising the nature of handling generally and are illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1.

The AT(M) model of human source handling.

Alliance

As shown in Figure 1, experienced handlers perceived effective handling to be dependent on the nature of the alliance (A) formed between the handler and the human source. The alliance – the nature and progress of the work undertaken by the human source and handler – was identified as dependent on a balance between the agenda of the handler and the agenda of the human source. An effective alliance was described as being based on the principal of reciprocity, or reasonable ‘give and take’. Within the context of clinical psychology, the benefits of a strong therapeutic alliance to treatment outcomes have been acknowledged for some considerable time (Bedi et al., 2005; Hatcher, 2010; Shirk and Karver, 2003; Thomson et al ., 2007). Although the nature of the alliance formed between the handler and the human source is fundamentally different to that of a clinician and client, there are some common elements.

Like the therapeutic alliance, the handler/source alliance consists of two elements – relationship alliance and task alliance (Hougaard, 1994). Relationship alliance refers to the bond and subsequent attachment that is formed between the human source and the handler. All participants (N = 22) considered the nature of the relationship between the handler and the human source to be crucial to the attainment of positive outcomes. Task alliance encompasses the rules of engagement that are established between the handler and the human source. Participants emphasised the importance of developing, rationalising and enforcing clear rules of engagement that served to dictate how the work of the human source would be conducted. Positive task alliance was described as present when the handler is in control and firm boundaries are in place. For example, participants indicated:

You need to call the shots, but you need to be inclusive (P4)³.

You draw a line in the sand and don’t cross it (P7).

Experienced handlers described both relationship and task elements as combining to facilitate a positive alliance. Conceptualising the handler/source alliance in this manner frames the purpose of forming the alliance. The majority of participants (N = 18) framed the aims of human source handling in positive terms and believed the aims to be, ‘to gather intelligence not available by other means to address crime, and to model values to a source to show them they can lead a different kind of life’ (P10). As P10 indicates, when a positive alliance is formed, the process and the potential outcomes can benefit both policing agencies and the human source. This is in stark contrast to documented views of handlers coldly manipulating human sources without regard for their well-being, as they work towards achieving a greater good.

Technique

Technique (T) was described as ‘tradecraft’; the methods applied to structure and guide the work of the human source. This included the methods applied by the handler to acquire information from the human source. Handlers emphasised that technique needed to be applied in way that minimised risk to the human source, the handler and the agency. Good technique was described by participants as including alliance considerations and related to typical aspects of tradecraft (e.g., defensive surveillance) that are the focus of current training regimes.⁴

Moderating variables

Moderating variables (M) were described as representing any event or action that disrupts the alliance, (i.e. work of the human source and the handler). When events or actions disrupt this work, the balance between the agenda of the handler and the agenda of the human source becomes unstable and action is required to restore equilibrium. For example, the human source may reoffend, make a disclosure of illegal conduct, or withdraw from criminal networks; or the handler may introduce a new co-handler, take a period of personal leave, or be required to move work location. Experienced handlers explained that when such an event/action occurs on the part of the human source, the handler is required to take action that will impact on the alliance established. However, when the event/action occurs on the part of the handler, the human source is left in an unstable position, which also impacts on the alliance established.

This representation of handling provided a framework from which the core attributes of an effective human source handler were discussed.

Core attributes of effective human source handlers

Within this model, experienced handlers identified the attributes they believed were required to effectively engage in this process of handling human sources. Attributes were discussed with reference to two key elements of the AT(M) model, alliance and technique, and so are discussed below with reference to the corresponding element of the model.

Alliance

Relationship alliance

Experienced handlers identified a number of key attributes which they perceived were required of handlers to establish, build and maintain positive relationship alliance. These are shown in Table 1. Also shown in Table 1 is the percentage of handlers who perceived that each identified attribute was either trainable or not trainable (i.e., not able to be developed via agency training).

Table 1.

Attributes required for positive relationship alliance.

Attributes	Indicated to be an attribute		Of those who indicated the attribute
	Indicated to be an attribute		Indicated NOT trainable		Indicated trainable
	%	n	%	n	%	n
Conversational skills	86.36	19	100.0	19	0.0	0
Ego dropping	86.36	19	100.0	19	0.0	0
The ability to be consistent	81.81	18	16.66	3	83.33	15
The ability to convey genuine empathy	81.81	18	83.33	15	16.66	3
Knowledge of investigative practices	77.27	17	82.35	14	17.64	3
A charismatic disposition	77.27	17	82.35	14	17.64	3
The ability to identify the human source agenda and balance the handler and human source agenda	72.72	16	43.75	7	56.25	9
The ability to conduct research	72.72	16	6.25	1	93.75	15
Sensitivity to social cues and the ability to respond to social cues	63.63	14	78.57	11	21.43	3
The ability to engage in active/reflective listening	63.63	14	64.28	9	35.71	5
Resilience	63.63	14	78.57	11	21.42	3
Patience	54.54	12	66.66	8	33.33	4
Self-awareness	50.00	11	63.63	7	36.36	4
The ability to multi-task	50.00	11	18.18	2	81.81	9
Sound reasoning skills	36.36	8	50.00	4	50.00	4

In terms of conversational skills, participants were of the view that a handler needs to be able to initiate and maintain conversation, speak about a wide range of issues/topics and pitch a conversation at a level appropriate to the human source. Related to this, the majority of participants emphasised the importance of ‘ego dropping’, not being constrained by fear of failure or the need to be perceived positively. To build positive relationship alliance the handler needs to cease conforming to the norms associated with the social role of police officer, or the ‘enforcer of law’ (P12) and ‘take the police hat off’ (P2). In some instances, this requires the stripping back of many years of police training. Experienced handlers described that positive relationship alliance develops when the handler relates to the human source at his/her level, assumes a non-threatening demeanour and conversational approach, is professional in approach, ‘understands the lingo’ (P2), and engages in a relaxed and friendly manner. Respect from the human source to the handler is commanded because conduct and professional boundaries are established but not enforced in a dictatorial or superior manner.

Participants discussed that positive relationship alliance is dependent on a significant level of trust that only develops when genuine empathy is conveyed. Therefore, the majority of participants emphasised that the ability to convey genuine empathy was a key attribute of effective handlers. For example, this may require the handler to focus on a positive attribute exhibited by the human source and to use this to aid in the development of some form of genuine empathy. As one participant indicated, ‘everyone has something likeable about them. For example, they love their kids and would do anything for them. You need to find that thing and focus on it so you can be genuine’ (P6). Participants asserted that positive relationship alliance only develops when the human source knows he/she can always depend on the handler and so indicated that the ability to be consistent was a critical attribute of effective handlers. If the handler indicates he/she will do something, it is important he/she follow through consistently. For example, ‘if I say I will call at 10, I make sure I call at 10’ (P2).

Participants indicated that knowledge of investigative practice was a necessary attribute to develop positive relationship alliance. The handler needs to speak with expertise and authority when potential scenarios are presented by the human source (e.g., ‘What would happen if…?’ [P15]). Participants also asserted that an effective handler must have a charismatic disposition and therefore be extroverted, as opposed to introverted. An element of this was the need to be likeable, outgoing and confident.

Participants discussed that positive relationship alliance was dependent on the handler’s ability to identify the agenda of the human source and balance the handler (i.e., agency relevant) and human source (i.e., personal) agenda. Participants asserted that understanding the agenda and the motivation of a human source was critical to developing genuine empathy, and in turn, positive relationship alliance. They asserted that effective handlers understand that motivation is rarely driven exclusively by reward and is most often driven by the desire for friendship/companionship. For example, one participant indicated:

Friendship is the principal motive. They need a friend. I always say to them ‘who do you trust?’ I know what the answer is going to be – they don’t trust anyone. Usually they might say kids, wife, but generally speaking they don’t trust anyone because they’ve been stung. But you can fill that void and be someone they like and trust. And trust is earned – you’re not going to get that straight away from them (P2).

One participant explained the dangers associated with assuming that reward is the primary motivator:

You give this information and I get money for you. It becomes a transaction – so every time they see you they think – hmmm – hang on – I gave you a clan lab and you gave me $1,000 for that one. This time your only giving me $500 – and it becomes a mess. So, an informant who talks to you might do so because they like you and trust you, or because they want to take out enemies, remove competition, have revenge, or they want to make penance for bad deeds done. In terms of money, I will wait until their kids have a birthday. You might be dealing with a […]shit, but they love their kids. If you know the birthday or at Christmas – that’s when we roll out a bit of money for them if they are not going to be insulted about it – I don’t like that money for information relationship, it’s a bad relationship to have (P5).

A task participants saw as fundamental to effective handling is the ability to identify human source motivation and then work towards the simultaneous satisfaction of human source needs and policing imperatives. Consequently, how a handler recruits and manages a human source is guided by perceptions of human source motivation and so, if motivation is incorrectly inferred, it shapes the relationship in a negative way. Seeking to uncover and understand motivation also facilitates the identification of vulnerabilities that can subsequently be exploited when developing positive relationship alliance.

A majority of participants also considered the ability to conduct research to be a key aspect of effective handling that facilitates positive relationship alliance. It was suggested that the manner, type and form of engagement with the human source should be based on information gathered via the process of background research; for example, the identification of gang members, criminal syndicates and networks.

Positive relationship alliance was also described by participants as being dependent on sensitivity to, and the ability to respond to social cues provided by the human source. Social cues are provided non-verbally and verbally (what is said, how it is said, and what is not said) and are intuited (Fiske and Taylor, 2013). The ability to intuit meaning from social cues enables the development of empathy (Fiske and Taylor, 2013), which is seen as fundamental to positive relationship alliance and effective handling. Related to this, participants indicated the importance of a handler’s ability to engage in active/reflective listening. A human source typically speaks in themes and provides cues that need to be identified an acted upon. A cue might at first seem like an ‘off the cuff remark but it is not always’ (P2). Active/reflective listening aids the identification of themes and messages and fosters greater awareness of the dispositional characteristics of the human source (Geldard, 1989).

Given the high-pressured environment of human source handling, effective handlers must exhibit high levels of resilience and be able to ‘bounce back’ (P4). Participants also indicated the need for patience, given that positive relationship alliance takes time to develop. Given the nature of their lifestyle, it also takes considerable time and effort to train a human source. Self-awareness was also considered essential and was characterised as having a firm understanding of the self, vulnerabilities and potential trigger points. Participants were also firmly of the belief that the ability to ‘multi-task’ is fundamental to effective handling. It was asserted that handlers need to be able to interact with the human source and develop positive relationship alliance whilst simultaneously scanning the environment for security threats and developing solutions to the problems being presented by the human source. Although participants emphasised the importance of sound reasoning skills, the ability to reason soundly when under significant pressure was seen as most critical to effective handling.

As Table 1 shows, the majority of participants identified most of these core attributes as being fundamental to the role of handler. The majority of participants were also of the view that most of these attributes were unlikely to be amenable to training (excluding the ability to be consistent, conduct research and multi-task). Thus, experienced handlers were of the view that some key attributes are dispositional and thus some police officers may not be suited to the role of handler.

Task alliance

In relation to task alliance, participants identified a number of key attributes which they perceived were required of handlers to develop, rationalise and enforce positive task alliance. These are shown in Table 2 below. Also shown in Table 2 is the percentage of handlers who indicated that each identified attribute was either trainable or not trainable (i.e., not able to be developed via agency training).

Table 2.

Attributes required for positive task alliance.

Attributes	Indicated to be an attribute		Of those who indicated the attribute
	Indicated to be an attribute		Indicated NOT trainable		Indicated trainable
	%	n	%	n	%	n
Ability to convey clear instructions	90.90	20	75.0	15	25	5
Understanding of techniques that promote compliance with rules of engagement and tasking requests	90.90	20	70.0	14	30.0	6
Ability to identify and respond appropriately to moderating variables	72.72	16	81.25	13	18.75	3

Participants were of the view that the ability to convey clear instructions was critical to establishing positive task alliance. Clarity of instruction was described as involving three elements: the language used, the delivery style and the delivery approach. Experienced handlers indicated that the language used to convey an instruction should be matched to the comprehension level of the human source and should therefore be equivalent to the type of language the source uses on a day-to-day basis. Instructions should not be delivered as an order and should be rationalised so that the consequences of not adhering to an instruction are clearly understood by the human source. For example, one participant conveyed:

For example, if an informer wants to tell their partner what they are doing and you say ‘don’t talk to her’ and leave it at that, that’s not going to work for them. You need to explain why. ‘What if in a years time she breaks up with you?’ You need to explain what could happen. Jilted partners sometimes do things to get back at you. As another example, they might say to meet at their home address because they feel safer there. But you need to explain why that’s not such a good idea. You need to be able to explain things without being a person who lectures to them. They don’t like being lectured to. Don’t bang out instructions – explain in layman’s terms using language that has similarity to them. Reflect their emotions and acknowledge it’s important to them – you need to square it away, deal with it and show that you care (P5).

Participants also discussed the importance of understanding techniques that promote compliance with rules of engagement and tasking requests. Therefore, they viewed the art of persuasion as being fundamental to positive task alliance. The principal role of the handler was seen as ensuring that the human source complied with rules developed to guide work (e.g., such as mobile phone security) and specific tasking requests. Therefore, positive task alliance required (a) the ability to apply persuasive techniques, in conjunction with (b) a sound understanding of basic behaviour modification principles and techniques (i.e., positive and negative reinforcement).

An additional attribute identified by participants was the ability to identify and to respond appropriately to moderating variables (M) which constitute events or actions that disrupt the work of the human source and threaten equilibrium (i.e., the balance between the agenda of the human source and the handler). When this occurs, the handler needs to take action immediately. For example, if the human source reoffends, makes a disclosure of illegal conduct, or withdraws from criminal networks, effective handlers must take the appropriate course of action to address the situation.

Consistent with findings relating to relationship alliance, the majority of participants identified these core attributes as being fundamental to task alliance and the role of handler. Although a smaller percentage of experienced handlers considered these attributes as unlikely to be amenable to training, it was still a significant proportion of the sample.

Technique

Technique referred to the methods applied by the handler to structure and guide the work of the human source. Participants were of the view that these attributes were synonymous with the more practical aspects of handling and indicated unanimously that they were likely amenable to training. Core attributes were described as (a) the ability to task the human source in a safe and ethical manner, in accordance with policy and legislation (90.91% indicating [N = 20]) and (b) mastery of the range of skills required for cold recruits and referrals (100% indicating [N = 22]).⁵

Discussion

The findings of this research have both practical and theoretical implications for this specialist area of police practice. Findings have shown that experienced handlers perceive relationship alliance, task alliance and technique to constitute the core elements of effective human source handling. Furthermore, for a handler to develop positive relationship and task alliance and to develop effective technique, certain attributes are required. Although experienced handlers were of the view that the attributes required for sound technique were likely amenable to training, they did not consider the attributes required to facilitate positive relationship alliance and most aspects of task alliance as likely amenable to training. Therefore, experienced handlers were of the view that some attributes were dispositional and therefore, some police officers may not be suited to the role of handler. The findings of research considering the effect of training that focuses on alliance building on therapy outcomes, are consistent with the views of experienced handlers. Specifically, this research has shown that training does not improve therapy outcomes, or the ability of the therapist to develop a positive alliance (Horvath, 2001). Furthermore, although it has shown that training improves the ability of therapists to repair strains to positive alliances (Safran and Muran, 2001), this only occurs when a positive alliance has been previously established. Therefore, research examining the effect of training on the ability of therapists to build positive alliances and repair strained alliances is consistent with experienced handler perceptions that these attributes are likely not amenable to training.

The idea that handler attributes are largely dispositional and not amenable to training is consistent with the view of human source handling as being an ‘art’ or ‘craft’. This is a conceptualisation of general police practice that has been applied to investigative practice (Tong and Bowling, 2006). Police practice as an ‘art’ encapsulates practice that is based on intuition and initiative, whilst practice as a ‘craft’ encapsulates practice that develops from experience on the job (i.e., with workplace experience, officers develop and refine their craft; Tong and Bowling, 2006). Practice as ‘art’ and ‘craft’ imply that investigative practice is not something that can be learnt via more formal means of training. However, these views have recently been criticised, as police increasingly apply science to their methods in an attempt to professionalise their practice. By way of example, advances in investigative interviewing practice have focused on applying a scientific approach to interviewing, to ensure consistent, evidence-based practice which informs officer training and development. The use of scientific principles in developing, testing and refining interview methods (e.g., the PEACE model, the cognitive interview and increasing cognitive load to aid in the detection of deception; Holliday et al ., 2009; van der Sleen, 2009), has vastly improved police practice in an area which has traditionally been viewed as an art and/or a craft.

The suggestion that human source handling is an ‘art’ or ‘craft’, not amenable to training and so only able to be undertaken by certain individuals, ascribes an ‘elevated cultural status’ to the role (Tong and Bowling, 2006). This type of practice risks a lack of transparency, encourages secrecy around the role and thus increases the potential for misconduct and corrupt practice. With regard to human source handling, this is a position where police agencies were some 20 years ago (Crous, 2009; 2011). Since this time, significant effort has been made towards professionalising the practice, with training one key aspect of this movement (Crous, 2011). Tong and Bowling (2006) assert that professional practice is built from a scientific basis, which implies that skill is trainable, in the same way that science can be taught to exact principles. Thus, it seems important that the view of human source handling as an art or craft be challenged, and that greater emphasis be placed on bringing science to the practice.

In any discussion of the use of human source, it is important to acknowledge the ethical contentions around the practice.⁶ One ethical issue that arose within the current research was the inconsistency between the reported, positive motive for requiring a particular attribute (e.g., to ensure the safety of the human source), and the reality of the negative nature of subsequent actions. For example, experienced handlers spoke about the importance of conveying genuine empathy in relation to relationship alliance, reasoning that it was possible to develop because all people have some likeable qualities that can be focused upon. Although this attribute was described as positive because it increased the likelihood that the human source would comply with rules and therefore be safe, the process of searching for one likeable quality suggests that the development of empathy is contrived, which is arguably not a positive, or ‘good’ attribute. In fact, the majority of attributes that were identified could be considered as ways in which experienced handlers manipulate the human source to comply with instructions (i.e., taking the police hat off, dropping of ego, and being charismatic to ensure the human source will relate to the handler). Despite the negative associations that could be ascribed to these behaviours, experienced handlers genuinely described handling in positive terms and considered the role of the handler as being to help the human source work towards leading a more productive life.

This inconsistency between participant attitudes (i.e., their personal views of handling) and the behaviours described as necessary to effectively manage a human source might be explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant state generated when there is an inconsistency between two attitudes, or attitudes and behaviour. Individuals become motivated to reduce dissonance and can achieve this by changing attitudes, behaviour, minimising, or by acquiring new information (Festinger, 1957). The theory of cognitive dissonance has been used in other research, to explain why otherwise good police officers might lie. For example, McClurg (2010) suggests that although police officers are trained to uphold the law and to tell the truth, many otherwise good police officers in America have lied under oath when in court because to do so serves a greater good (e.g., ensuring the conviction of a known offender; protecting the wider community). Knowing that they have lied is inconsistent with the officer’s self-concept (i.e., being a good police officer), creating dissonance. To alleviate dissonance, the police officer can alter self-concept, change the behaviour (i.e., lying), or justify the behaviour.

The principles identified by McClurg can be extrapolated to explain the inconsistency between experienced handler attitudes towards handling and described behaviour of handling. It is likely that handlers experience dissonance due to the manipulation that is required to contrive a ‘genuine’ relationship with a source. Experienced handlers may alleviate this dissonance by justifying the use of otherwise negative techniques, as being for the greater good (i.e., protecting the community from crime) and for the benefit of the human source (i.e., providing friendship and modelling civic behaviours). Alternatively, it may be that the genuinely positive view of human source handling articulated by experienced handlers is a reflection of the current policing context and associated training regimes. This context is characterised by greater transparency associated with human source management and recruitment and strict governance frameworks guiding work practices.

In terms of the practical implications of this research, the view of experienced handlers (i.e., that the attributes required for effective handling are dispositional and not amenable to training), legitimises the use of assessment centres to identify and select officers most suited to the role of handler. Despite this, it must be acknowledged that research still needs to consider how to validly measure each attribute, and the actual effect of particular forms of training on the development of those attributes. At this stage, we have simply identified experienced handler perceptions. Within any policing context, selection programmes require the identification of attributes, the development of assessment tools and the validation of those tools (Gowan and Gatewood, 1995). Although this issue was raised in an internal review of the very first assessment centre selecting undercover officers in 1948 (Girodo, 1997), the advances made in that area have yet to be extrapolated to related specialist areas of policing.

In Australian jurisdictions, an assessment centre methodology is incorporated to select officers most suited to the role of human source handler and to train officers for this specialist role. For example, officers are typically screened for training on the basis of broad personality dimensions. Once accepted for training, officers are typically eliminated from the course if they fail to demonstrate competence in any of the domains being trained for. Although the findings of this research provide support for the current assessment centre methodology, it is important to consider the validity of current human source training programmes – specifically, what skills and abilities are taught during training programmes and whether these skills and abilities align with the skills and abilities required to perform the role. Given the historic lack of empirical evidence to inform the development of training programmes, it is likely that course developers rely on practice wisdom, and nationally and internationally accepted conventions of best practice to determine what to train for. If the attributes identified in this research are indicative of effective handlers, human source training programmes might benefit from fostering proficiency within each identified domain. In this way, the findings of this research provide a conceptual framework from which training programmes in human source recruitment and management can be developed.

In order to progress this work further, there is a need to further develop and define identified attributes. A number of the attributes identified by experienced handlers are somewhat generic, highlighting the need to acknowledge context in the formulation of attribute definitions. For example, conversational and/or communication skills were identified as important to positive relationship and task alliance. Similar communication skills have been identified as important to detective work (Westera et al ., 2016). However, the aims and outcomes associated with handling are different to the aims and outcomes of detective work. Detectives communicate with a diverse range of people (i.e., offenders, victims, witnesses and members of the public), usually for a short period of time and for the specific purpose of gathering information relevant to the investigation of a specific offence. In contrast, handlers typically work with known offenders who are associated with criminal networks, over a period of time, using communication skills to build a relationship, acquire the respect of the human source and gain compliance with tasking requests and activities. Hence, the definition of ‘effective communication’ is likely to change according to the purpose of engagement and, therefore, the policing function. Therefore, whilst experienced detectives might be best positioned to define effective communication as it applies to detective work (Westera et al ., 2016), experienced handlers might be best positioned to define effective communication within the context of handling. This emphasises the importance of practitioner-academic collaboration in progressing empirical investigation of the key attributes and associated training packages.

Conclusion

The findings of this research have identified the core attributes of effective human source handlers from the perspective of experienced human source handlers. Although the size of the sample of experienced handlers was relatively small, it must be acknowledged that across all policing jurisdictions, the population of officers trained to DSU standards is equally small. An additional issue relates to the manner in which experienced handlers were selected, as an element of subjectivity will be associated with agency nomination of experienced handlers. However, because intrusive supervision is a fundamental characteristic of handling at the DSU level, we can have greater confidence in perceptions of the core attributes of effective human source handlers when provided by DSU trained handlers. Intrusive supervision at the DSU level constitutes co-ordinated and group based self-reflection, critical appraisal of performance and constant endeavours towards self and group improvement. All of these techniques are fundamental to the process of developing expertise. Despite these issues, this research is the first step towards the development of a robust process for selecting officers suited to the role of handler, and the development of training programmes that target those attributes required to perform the role effectively. The next step in the process of research is to validate definitions of attributes and to develop and validate measures for relevant attributes.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Pamela Henry

Nikki Rajakaruna

Notes

References

Amir

(2003) Criminal undercover agents or ‘bad people’ doing ‘going good things’. Substance Use and Misuse 38(10): 1425–1431.

Anderson

Swenson

Clay

(1995) Stress Management for Law Enforcement Officers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bedi

Davis

Williams

(2005) Critical incidents in the formation of the therapeutic alliance from the client’s perspective. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 42(3): 311–323.

Bellamy

Ostini

Martini

Kairuz

(2016) Seeking to understand: Using generic qualitative research to explore access to medicines and pharmacy services among resettled refugees. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 38(3): 671–675.

Berg

(2007) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Billingsley

(2001) Informers careers: Motivations and change. In Billingsley

Nemitz

Bean

(eds) Informers: Policing, Policy, Practice. Routledge: London, 81–97.

Billingsley

(2004) Process deviance and the use of informers: The solution. Police Research and Management 6(2): 67–87.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Clark

(2001) Informers and corruption. In: Billingsley

Nemitz

Bean

(eds) Informers: Policing, Policy, Practice. New York: Routledge, 38–49.

10.

Cooper

Murphy

(1997) Ethical approaches for police officers when working with informants in the development of criminal intelligence in the United Kingdom. Journal of Social Policy 26(1): 1–20.

11.

Cordner

Scarborough

(2010) Information sharing: Exploring the intersection of policing with national and military intelligence. Homeland Security Affairs 6(1): 1–19.

12.

Crous

(2009) Human intelligence sources: Challenges in policy development. Security Challenges 5(3): 117–127.

13.

Crous

(2010) Managing covert human intelligence sources: Lessons for police commanders. Australasian Policing: A Journal of Professional Practice and Research 3(2): 12–15.

14.

Crous

Walsh

Mitchell

(2005) Directed criminal informants: An underutilized crime reduction resource. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference. Victoria University of Wellington, 9–11 February.

15.

Crous

(2011). Managing covert human intelligence sources: Lessons for police commanders. Australasian Policing 3(2): 12–15.

16.

Dunninghan

Norris

(1998). Some ethical dilemmas in the handling of police informers. Public Money and Management 18(1): 21 – 25.

17.

Festinger

(1957) Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.

18.

Fiske

Taylor

(2013) Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.

19.

Geldard

(1989) Basic Personal Counseling. New York: Prentice Hall.

20.

Girodo

(1997) Undercover agent assessment centres: Crafting vice and virtue for imposters. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 12(5): 237–260.

21.

Gowan

Gatewood

(1995) Personnel selection. In: Brewer

Wilson

(eds) Psychology and Policing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

Grant

(1996) Officer selection and the prevention of abuse of force. In: Geller

Toch

(eds) Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 150–164.

23.

Harfield

(2012) Police informers and professional ethics. Criminal Justice Ethics 31(2): 73–95.

24.

Hatcher

(2010) The Therapeutic Alliance: An Evidence-based Guide to Practices. New York: Guildford Publications.

25.

Hibler

(1995) The care and feeding of undercover agents. In: Kurke

Scrivner

(eds) Police Psychology into the 21st Century. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 299–317.

26.

Holliday

Brainerd

Reyna

Humphries

(2009) The cognitive interview: Research and practice across the lifespan. In: Bull

Valentine

Williamson

(eds) Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions. Chichester: Wiley, 137–160.

27.

Horvath

(2001) The therapeutic alliance: Concepts, research and training. Australian Psychologist 36(2): 170–176.

28.

Hougaard

(1994) The therapeutic alliance – a conceptual analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 35(1): 67–85.

29.

Innes

(2000) ‘Professionalizing’ the role of the police informant: The British experience. Policing and Society 9(4): 357–383.

30.

Liamputtong

(2009) Qualitative Research Methods. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

31.

Lieberman

(2007) Ethical issues in the use of confidential informants for narcotic operations. The Police Chief 74(6): 1–5.

32.

McClurg

(1999) Good cop, bad cop: Using cognitive dissonance theory to reduce police lying. University of California-Davis Law Review, 32. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1630533 (accessed 1 July 2019).

33.

MacLeod

(1995) Undercover policing: A psychiatrists’ perspective. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 18(2): 239–247.

34.

May

Hough

(2001) Illegal dealings: The impact of low-level police enforcement on drug markets. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 9(2): 137–162.

35.

Merriam

S B

(2009) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

36.

Miller

(2004) Good cop – bad cop: Problem officers, law enforcement culture and strategies for success. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 19(2): 30–48.

37.

Miller

(2006) Undercover policing: A psychological and operational guide. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 21(2): 1–24.

38.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

39.

Percy

Kostere

(2015) Generic qualitative research in psychology. The Qualitative Report 20(2): 76–85.

40.

Rosenfeld

Jacobs

Wright

(2003) Snitching and the code of the street. British Journal of Criminology 43(2): 291–309.

41.

Safran

Muran

(2001) Negotiating the Therapeutic Alliance: A Relational Treatment Guide. New York: Guildford.

42.

Scrivner

(1999) Controlling police use of excessive force: The role of the police psychologist. In: Territo

Sewell

(eds) Stress Management in Law Enforcement. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 383–391.

43.

Shirk

Karver

(2003) Prediction of treatment outcome from relationship variables in child and adolescent therapy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71(3): 452–464.

44.

South

(2001) Informers, agents and accountability. In: Billingsley

Nemitz

Bean

(eds.) Informers: Policing, Policy, Practice. Routledge: London, 67–80.

45.

Thomson

Bender

Lantry

Flynn

(2007) Treatment engagement: Building therapeutic alliance in home based treatment with adolescents and their families. Contemporary Family Therapy 29(1–2): 39–55.

46.

Tong

Bowling

(2006) Art, craft and science of detective work. The Police Journal 79(4): 323–329.

47.

Turcotte

(2008) Shifts in police informant negotiations. Global Crime 9(4): 291–305.

48.

Twersky-Glasner

(2005) Police personality: What is it and why are they like that? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 20(1): 56–67.

49.

van der Sleen

(2009) A structured model for investigative interviewing of suspects. In: Bull

Valentine

Williamson

(eds) Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. doi.org/10.1002/9780470747599.ch3.

50.

Police

(2015) WA Police Human Source Management Manual. Available by request from the WA Police Force.

51.

Westera

Kebbell

Milne

Green

(2016) Towards a more effective detective. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy 26(1): 1–17.

52.

Williams

Guess

(1981) The informant: A narcotics enforcement dilemma. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 13(3): 235–245.

53.

Williamson

Bagshaw

(2001) The ethics of informer handling. In: Billingsley

Nemitz

Bean

(eds) Informers: Policing, Policy, Practice. Routledge: London, 67–80.