information is collected for a policing purpose, in line with the Data Protection Act 2018, data quality principles, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.they are aware of the current intelligence requirements.the opportunity for debriefing operations.briefings and tasking to staff deployed to collect information.staff are made aware of what the intelligence requirements are.the control strategy drives the intelligence requirement.clear intelligence requirements have been set.information from partner agencies, for example, social services for a child protection matter.anonymous information, for example, from Crimestoppers or the anti-terrorism hotline.information from voluntary organisations, for example, Neighbourhood Watch.any public contact through command and control or crime systems.It can be received in any format, at any time, and includes: can refer to information that the police have requested.is usually received because people want something done with the information.may not necessarily relate to a specific tasking or intelligence requirement.It refers to any information received which has not been obtained by routine or tasked collection. This type of information is usually collected from the general public, community contacts and partners. Information is generated from all policing activities, for example: Much of it is relevant only for the specific policing purpose for which it was collected, but some will prove to be relevant to an entirely different policing purpose. This is information collected as part of routine operational policing activity. Information is collected in one of three ways: It should not matter where the information originates from, and it should be available to support policing purposes across the country. It is essential that information is collected, recorded and evaluated in a consistent manner across organisational and force boundaries. The way in which police information is collected may lead to specific requirements for its recording and use, as is the case with information covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Information collected for one policing purpose may have value to another. All police information should, therefore, be treated as a corporate resource. A force information management strategy (IMS) allows information requirements to be set and so determines the information that needs to be collected. It affects all other stages of information management, from how the information is recorded to how long it will be retained. This is the start of the information management process. Implications for future research are presented.Collection, accurate assessment and timely analysis of information are essential to effective and efficient policing. The significant race effect persists when taking into account the studies’ variations in research methods and the nature of explanatory models used in the studies. Converting the race effect size to probabilities shows that compared with the average probability in these studies of a White being arrested (.20), the average probability for a non-White was calculated at. Depending on the method of estimation, the effect size of race varied between 1.32 and 1.52. The meta-analysis shows with strong consistency that minority suspects are more likely to be arrested than White suspects. Screening nearly 4,500 potential sources, we analyze the results based on 27 independent data sets that generated 40 research reports (both published and unpublished) that permitted an estimate of the effect size of the suspect's race on the probability of arrest. We perform a meta-analysis of quantitative research that estimates the effect of race on the police decision to arrest. Many respondents to opinion surveys say that the citizen's race influences how police officers treat the public, yet recent expert social-science panels have declared that research findings are too contradictory to form a conclusion on whether American police are biased against racial minorities.