Welcome
Thanks for your interest in contributing to The Internal Affairs Intel Report, the leading weekly newsletter for internal affairs professionals, investigations managers, and command-level supervisors across law enforcement, fire, corrections, EMS, and dispatch organizations.
This publication reaches the largest and most engaged audience of IA practitioners and internal investigations leaders in the United States. Contributors regularly report that publication leads to consulting opportunities, speaking invitations, professional network expansion, and increased credibility within their agencies.
The Internal Affairs Intel Report welcomes contributions from experienced IA practitioners, investigators, supervisors, and command staff who can clearly and practically communicate insights drawn from investigations work. We seek perspectives from the full spectrum of the IA profession working within Police, Fire, Corrections, and Human Resource departments:
Investigators from small, rural, and metropolitan departments
IA commanders and supervisory staff
Specialized investigators (digital forensics, public corruption, use of force)
HR professionals and employee relations managers
Legal advisors, risk managers, and city/county administrators
First responder organizations beyond law enforcement (fire, EMS, corrections, dispatch)
We are also interested in:
Photo essays and visual investigations analysis
Data visualizations of findings, trends, or case outcomes
Short-form video submissions (1-3 minute investigations walkthroughs or procedural explainers)
Research briefings and policy analysis pieces
The IA Intel Report readers value practical insight drawn from investigation experience. To make your article as helpful and actionable as possible, focus on clarity, specificity, and real-world application:
Lead with a clear problem or investigative challenge. Start with the issue your article helps investigators solve — not a broad theme. Why does this investigation type or procedural problem matter now? What's at stake if it isn't addressed? What pattern are you seeing across agencies?
Offer real-world examples and case-grounded evidence. Use short investigative scenarios, data points from your own cases, policy language examples, or observations from your investigations practice to illustrate your points. Specifics make your guidance credible and transferable to the reader's own investigations.
Focus on immediately applicable takeaways. After each key idea, show what the reader can do differently in their next investigation or their next policy review. Replace general statements with specific investigative steps, documentation protocols, interview techniques, or policy language that can be applied by Monday morning.
Write to your audience with respect for their expertise. Decide whether you're addressing first-line investigators, IA commanders, command staff, legal teams, or a mixed audience — and tailor your tone, technical depth, and examples to that group. IA Intel readers have investigation experience; assume that and write accordingly.
Show the real complications, not just the textbook answer. Be candid about what's difficult, what can go wrong, what conflicts emerge between procedure and practical reality, and what you've learned from mistakes. Readers learn most from tension, failure analysis, and lessons earned through experience.
Close with a challenge or reflection, not repetition. End with a question, a conflict worth sitting with, or a challenge that prompts readers to reconsider how they handle this investigation type or this procedural decision in their own work.
The IA Intel Report regularly publishes first-person essays where experienced investigators reflect on cases, procedural challenges, or lessons learned. These pieces humanize the investigative profession and offer the kind of candid insight that only comes from lived experience.Investigations narratives may include:
A significant case and what it taught you about investigative procedure, interviewing, or evidence collection
A procedural problem you solved and how other investigators might solve it too
A conflict you encountered between policy compliance and practical investigation, and how you navigated it
A learning experience (a case that went wrong, a missed investigative step, a lesson from a mentor)
Observations about patterns you're seeing (conduct issues, policy gaps, training needs) across your investigations experience
Length: 800–2,000 words
Tone: Professional but personal; candid and reflective rather than distanced or academic
Audience: Your peer investigators and IA commanders
Articles are distributed by weekly eNewsletter to all subscribers, featured on the InternalAffairsTrainng.com website, promoted across professional social channels, and optimized for search engine discovery and ranking. IA practitioners regularly cite their published articles as essential to:
Receiving conference speaking invitations at professional conferences (IACP, ILEETA, NSA, state associations)
Building professional credibility and visibility within their field
Attracting consulting or training opportunities
Growing their professional network
Supporting promotion or credibility within their agency
Before you submit an article, please send an email to [email protected] with the following information:
Working title for the article
2–3 sentence description of the article — What investigation problem or IA challenge does it address? What will readers learn?
Bullet-point list of key takeaways — What are the 4–6 practical insights or investigative steps your article will teach?
Target audience — Who is this written for? (First-line investigators, IA commanders, HR professionals, command staff, mixed audience?)
Estimated submission date
Your professional background — Current role, years of investigation/IA experience, relevant specializations, agency type/size (up to 3 sentences)
Up-to-date resume or CV (attached)
Investigations & Procedure
Discipline, complaint intake, and investigations case management
Digital forensics, surveillance, and evidence collection in IA investigations
Interview and interrogation techniques specific to officer-involved cases
Use-of-force investigations and documentation
Public corruption and code-of-conduct investigations
Specialized investigations (sexual offenses, substance, financial misconduct)
Brady/Giglio management and officer credibility files
Policy & Compliance
Garrity protections and constitutional compliance in officer interviews
Loudermill pre-discipline procedures and liability management
Policy language and case law application
Documentation standards and evidentiary requirements
Records retention and discovery obligations
Civilian complaint procedures and oversight frameworks
Leadership & Organizational
Building and managing IA divisions and investigations teams
IA program assessment and continuous improvement
Recruiting and developing investigations staff
Managing conflicts between investigations function and command staff
IA culture and professionalism in the organization
Supervisor liability and command-level accountability
Emerging Issues
AI and automated systems in investigations and officer surveillance
Body camera evidentiary standards and policy implications
Digital evidence and metadata in investigations
Social media investigations and off-duty conduct
Mental health and fitness-for-duty investigations
Addressing patterns and systemic concerns
Data, Research & Analysis
Investigation outcome data and trends
Analysis of misconduct patterns across your organization or industry
Research briefings on IA best practices
Comparative analysis of IA procedures across jurisdictions
Case law and policy analysis relevant to IA practitioners
Professional Development
Training approaches for investigators and IA staff
Certification and credentialing in the IA profession
Mentoring and knowledge transfer in investigations work
Building a professional network in IA
Educational pathways and career development in IA
If an editor accepts your proposed article idea, review and follow these specifications for submission style and format.
Article specifications:✓ Originality. Contributions must be unique and original writing that has not been previously published or submitted to other outlets or newsletters.✓ Length. Each submission should be between 800 to 2,000 words, submitted as a Microsoft Word document or Google Doc.✓ With your submission, please include:
References list in publication-ready format at the end of the document (APA or Chicago style). If a URL or case citation is available, please provide.
Original photographs, screenshots, or diagrams directly relevant to your article's topic (e.g., evidence documentation forms, interview setup, case study visuals). High resolution preferred.
Author biography (3–5 sentences) + professional headshot or professional photo. Biography should include: current title and organization, years of investigation/IA experience, key specializations, and educational credentials or certifications if relevant.
Author contact information — email and LinkedIn profile (optional but recommended; makes you accessible to readers and professional contacts)
✓ On the use of generative AI: We understand that contributors may want to use AI tools to research ideas, organize thoughts, or draft sections.
We ask that you disclose to the editor whether and how you've used these tools. Specifically:
Did you use AI to research or gather background information?
Did you use AI to draft or substantially assist in writing any sections?
Was any AI-generated text included in your final submission without human review and editing?
Authors are accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their content. All factual claims, case references, and procedural guidance must be accurate and defensible. If your article makes claims about case law, policy, or procedure, you should be prepared to cite sources.
Once submitted, your article moves through the following process:
Does the article match the proposal submitted and address a real IA/investigations challenge?
Is the guidance accurate, credible, and grounded in investigation or IA experience?
Does the article provide actionable takeaways for practitioners?
Is the writing clear, specific, and free of jargon or unnecessary academic language?
Does the article meet our editorial standards for accuracy, fairness, and professionalism?
Review the article for clarity, structure, and focus
Ensure all claims are supported by the evidence or examples provided
Check references for accuracy and format
Propose edits to strengthen takeaways or improve readability
Flag any accuracy concerns or requests for source verification
Experienced IA practitioners who publish strong contributor articles are regularly invited to become regular columnists for the IA Intel Report. Columnists are expert voices on a specific area of investigations practice and publish monthly or quarterly columns on topics within their specialization.Columnists receive:
Guaranteed publication schedule and editorial support
Professional promotion across IA Intel channels and partner networks
A platform to establish thought leadership in their specialty area
Potential speaking and consulting opportunities through expanded visibility
Internal Affairs Intel is committed to promoting accuracy, fairness, balance, and accountability while advancing the IA profession and supporting the safety and professionalism of law enforcement, fire, corrections, EMS, and dispatch organizations.Our editorial standards require:
Accuracy: All factual claims, case law references, and procedural guidance must be accurate and defensible. If you cite a case or policy, you should be able to provide that source.
Fairness: Represent differing viewpoints on contested procedures or policies. If your article argues for a particular approach to an investigation procedure or IA policy, acknowledge legitimate counter-arguments or alternative approaches.
Accountability: Stand behind your guidance. Your name and credibility are attached to the article; ensure your advice is something you would defend to a superior, a union representative, or legal counsel.
Relevance: Articles should address real investigations challenges or IA procedural issues faced by practitioners today. Avoid purely theoretical or historical pieces unless they illuminate current practice.
Professionalism: Maintain respect for the profession and for the officers under investigation. Even when criticizing procedures or pointing out failures, do so in the spirit of professional improvement, not blame or mockery.
For inquiries about article ideas, the submission process, editorial standards, or publication timeline, contact: [email protected]
Subject line: "The Internal Affairs Intel Report — Article Inquiry" or "IA Intel — Proposal Submission”
We look forward to your contribution to the Internal Affairs Intel community.