amanda huggins - excellence in policing · amanda huggins. provenance ... • 45 law enforcement...
Post on 18-May-2018
226 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Provenance
• August 2011 – ACPO Community Tension review• March 2013 – National & Regional Tasking project• March 2014 – Polka Community
• September 2015 – Project deliverables • Thematic and Tactical Models• 45 Law Enforcement Agencies using• 250 virtual group members
The Strategic need
Changing Policing landscape
• Austerity
• Criminality & Vulnerability
National Requirements
• Strategic Policing Requirement (SPR)
• National Tasking arrangements
Reports
• Policing in Austerity report 2015
• National Advisory Group - Reshaping Policing report
The Organisational need
• 19 Assessment tools or approaches
• 15 Assessment tools or approaches
• 14 Assessment tools or approaches
• 3 Assessment tools or approaches
Organisational Risk
Strategic Risk
Tactical RiskOperational
Risk
MoRiLEPhilosophy - To develop a range of methods that assist decision makers in identifying and prioritising Threat, Risk and Harm.
Achieved - Created a structured methodology and language and is developing a suite of complimentary risk prioritisation tools and approaches.
Complimentary – To National Intelligence Model (NIM) and National Decision Model (NDM)
Capacity & Capability – Intrinsically links Threat, Risk and Harm assessments to organisational Capacity and Capability to respond
The MoRiLE Matrix - Tactical
The MoRiLE Matrix is divided into three sections
• Harm,
• Likelihood
• Organisational Position
1 2 3
RISK Confidence Score
Community &
environment
Geographic
Scope
Total Harm
Score
Victim
vulnerability
Total
Likelihood
Score
Risk Score Confidence Score Priority OpportunityOrganisational
Position Grading
PHYSICAL
The physical
impact suffered by
an individual
PSYCHOLOGICAL
The psychological
impact suffered by
an individual
FINANCIAL
The financial
impact suffered by
the victim
The impact on the
community and
environment
How wide a
geographic area
the criminality is
spreading
REPUTATION &
POLITICS
The impact on the
organisation's
reputation and the
effect of internal
and external
political factors
ECONOMIC COST
The additional cost
to the organisation
to resolve the issue
CALCULATIN
G TOTAL
HARM SCORE
INTENT
Criminal Intent -
The motivation
and drive of the
offender or
group to
commit crime
on a continuing
basis
CAPABILITY
Criminal
Capability - The
expertise
(resources and
abilty) of the
offender or
group to
commit crime
FREQUENCY
The frequency
with which the
activity is seen
to be committed
by the
individual/group
VOLUME
The volume of
actvity seen to
be committed
by the
individual/group
Victim type and
propensity to
criminality
CALCULATING
TOTAL
LIKELIHOOD
SCORE
CALCULATIN
G RISK
SCORE
CONFIDENCE
SCORE
How confident are we
that the intelligence
picture refects the
true scale of the
threat?
Is this a current
priority or is there
an obligation to
act?
CURRENT
RESPONSE
Current
activity/response
CAPACITY
Do we have
resources to deal
with the issue?
If already
resourced,
consider if enough
resources are
allocated?
CAPABILITY
Do we have the
expertise and/or
equipment required
to deal with the
issue?
If already
resourced,
consider if the
correct
skills/equipment
are being utilised?
Harm Reduction
Oportunity
How ability of the
action to reduce
the impact or
likelihood of the
harm occurring.
CALCULATING
THE
ORGANISATIONA
L POSITION
SCORE
None/
Negligible
No / Negligible
impact
(0)
No / Negligible
impact
(0)
No / Negligible
impact
(0)
No / negligible
impact
(0)
Within a BCU
(0)
No / negligible
impact
(0)
No / negligible
impact.
(Business as
usual)
(0)
Low level or
infrequent
criminality:
impact local
and hidden
(0.25)
Disorganised,
lacks skill or
resources.
Groups
possess
transient
membership.
(0.25)
Annually or less
frequent
one offence
seen every year
or less frequent
(0.25)
No / Negligible
activity
(0.25)
Vulnerable due
to location, time
or offence (ie
working late at
petrol station,
creeper
burglaries)
(0.5)
VERY LOW
Remote/highly
unlikely -
Improbable/Unlikely
(0-20%chance)
No
(0)
Responding -
significant impact
(0)
Yes
(0)
Yes
(0)
Little opportunity to
reduce harm
(0)
Low
Short term physical
impact recoverable
without medical
assistance
(0.33)
Short term
psychological
impact
recoverable without
medical assistance
(0.33)
Short term financial
impact which has a
minimal effect on
day to day life.
(0.33)
Short term impact,
awareness of the
issue but, daily life
largely unaffected,
low impact on the
environment
(1)
Contained within
force area
(1)
Short term impact,
attracts attention of
local media or
political group
(0.5)
Short term, (small
resource
implication for a
limited period of
time)
(0.5)
Moderate scale
or volume:
impact local,
diluted
(0.5)
Disorganised,
possess some
skills and
knowledge to
obtain
resources.
Group
membership is
combination of
known nominals
and transient
members,
(0.5)
Bi Annually
one offence
seen every six
months
(0.5)
Small Volumes
(0.5)
Repeat victims
of non-violent
crimes
(1)
LOW
Realistic possibility
(>20% - <50%
chance)
Moral obligation
(1)
Responding -
moderate impact
(1)
Limited resourcing
issues exist but
management of the
issue continues
(1)
Minimal lack of
skills and
equipment but
management of the
issue continues
(1)
Limited opportunity
reduce harm, likely
to reduce harm in
the short term only
(1)
Moderate
Medium Term
physical impact
requiring medical
assistance.
(0.66)
Medium term
psychological
impact requiring
assistance of local
GP
(0.66)
Short term financial
impact which is
recoverable within
a short period of
time (ie.insurance)
(0.66)
Medium term
impact, increase in
concerns requires
involvement of one
partner agency to
resolve, incident is
contained within a
specific area with
limted damage
(2)
Contained within a
regional area
(2)
Medium term
impact, attracts the
attention of regional
media and
MEP/party view
(1)
Medium term,
(medium resource
implication for
intermediate time
period), managable
within the agency.
(1)
Serious or
frequent
criminal: impact
visible,
temporary
(1)
Some
organisation
seen, may
regularly use
violence and or
specialists to
achieve goals.
Group
membership
displays a
structure and
competence
(1)
Monthly
one offence
seen every
month
(1)
Moderate
Volumes
(1)
Factors exist
within the victim
to increase their
propensity to
crime ( ie Hate
crimes, drug
use, deprivation
factors, high
status
individual/family
)
(2)
MEDIUM
Probable/Very likely
(>50% - <70%
chance)
Operational/tactical
priority
(2)
Responding -
minimal impact
(2)
Resourcing issues
exist which have a
limited impact on
the management of
the issue
(2)
Lack of skills and
equipment which
has a limited
impact on the
management of the
issue
(2)
Opportunities to
reduce harm exist,
effects likely to last
short-mid term
duration
(2)
Substantial
Long term physical
impact requiring
hospitalisation for
7+ days.
(1.33)
Long term
psyhcological
impact, requiring
assistance of local
GP.
(1.33)
Medium term
financial impact
loss is not
recoverable due to
sentimental nature
of loss
(1.33)
Medium term
impact, Increase in
concerns, requires
involvement of 2-3
partner agencies to
resolve, incident
causes substantial
damage across a
large area
(4)
Contained within
the UK
(4)
Long term impact,
attracts the
attention of national
media or national
political interest (ie:
party leader)
(2)
Medium term,
(medium resource
implication for
intermediate time
period). Requires
additional
resources to be
sought from
suitable agencies
(2)
Significant level
of criminality:
impact visible
and acute
(1.5)
Organised,
possesses
skills and
resources.
Group
membership
shows clear
sturture and
competance.
(1.5)
Fortnightly
one offence
seen every two
weeks
(1.5)
Large Volumes
(1.5)
Repeat victims
of violent
offences
(3)
HIGH
Highly Probable/Very
Likely
(>70% - <90%
chance)
Strategic priority
(3)
Responding - No
impact
(3)
Resourcing issues
impede the
management the
issue
(3)
Lack of skills and
equipment
impedes
management of the
issue
(3)
Opportunities to
reduce harm exist,
effects likely to last
mid-long term.
(3)
Severe
Loss of individual
life
(2.66)
Individual requires
specific treatment
which involves
partner agencies
(ie Sectioned)
(2.66)
Medium term
financial impact,
loss is not
recoverable
through insurance
and therefore
causes hardship
(2.66)
Long term impact,
increase in
concerns requires
involvement of 2-3
partner agencies to
resolve, incident
causes sustained
damage across a
large area
(8)
Contained within
Europe
(8)
Long term impact,
attracts the
attention of national
media or national
political interest (ie:
party leader),
results in key
individuals
resigning or being
called upon to
resign
(4)
Long term (large
resource
implication for
prolonged period of
time), managable
within the agency
(4)
Extremely high
scale, multiple
crime types:
visible, chronic
impact.
(2)
Highly
organised and
disciplined:
expert skills and
resourced,
coerce or
corrupt others.
Group
membership
shows slear
structure with
clear roles
allocated.
(2)
Daily
one or more
offences seen
every day
(2)
Very Large
Volumes
(2)
Factors exist
which place
victim into a
vulnerable
category
(Elderly, very
young, mentally
or physically
disabled or
impaired).
(4)
VERY HIGH
Almost Certain
(>90% chance)
Legal Obligation
(4)
None
(4)
No
(4)
No
(4)
Opportunities to
reduce harm exist,
effects are likely to
be permanent.
(4)
Critical
Loss of two or
more lives
(5.33)
Individual
endagers or
causes loss of own
life
(5.33)
Long term
financial impact to
an inidvidual or
organisation, which
causes significant
hardship
(homelessness,
redundancies)
(5.33)
Increase in
concerns, requires
a multi-agency (4+)
response to
resolve, incident
endangers the
environment and all
things living in that
area
(16)
International links -
but not to countries
linked to terrorist
activities
(16)
Impact of issue is
felt at international
levels or attracts
international
political interest
(8)
Long term (large
resource
implication for
prolonged period of
time) Requires
additional
resources to be
sought from
suitable agencies
(8)
Catastrophic
Mass casualty,
impact affects the
wider community
(10.66)
Inidvidual endagers
or causes loss of
others lives
(10.66)
Loss of business
causing financial
hardship in the
wider community
(10.66)
Critical Incident
declared requiring
significant, co-
ordinated multi-
agency (4+)
approach to
resolve, incident
causes permanent
damage to the
environment
(32)
International links -
linked to countries
involved in terrorist
activities
(32)
Impact of issue is
felt at international
levels and results
in an international
dispute (trade
embargoes, etc)
(16)
Severe economic
consequences
(large, prolonged
resource
implication which is
unsustainable,
restricts the ability
to conduct daily
business)
(16)
Resourcing
Add the score
for each of the
Harm criteria
together
(Victim
(Physical +
Psychological
+ Financial) +
Community
and
Environment +
Geographic
Scope +
Organisational
(Reputation
and Politics +
Economic
Cost) = Total
Harm Score)
LIKELIHOODIMPACT & HARM
Victim Organisational How credible is the threat? Scale of criminality
Add the
scores from
Likelihood
criteria
together (How
credible is the
threat (Intent +
Capability) +
Scale of
criminality
(How often +
How Much) +
Victim
Vulnerability =
Total
Likelihood
Score)
Multiply the
TOTAL HARM
SCORE by the
TOTAL
LIKELIHOOD
SCORE
(Total Harm x
Total
Likelihood =
Risk Score)
ORGANISATIONAL POSITION
Organisational
Position Grading
is achieved by
populating the
Priority,
Resourcing and
Opportunity
columns. The
resulting score
from these
columns will pull
back a set
multiplier and a
calculation will be
performed
providing this
final score.
MoRiLE Tactical Matrix Version 5
DashboardMoRiLE Matrix
Thematic
Area
Harm Likelihood Risk Organisational PositionIn
div
idu
al
Co
mm
un
ity
Pu
blic E
xp
ecta
tio
n
En
vir
on
men
tal
Fin
an
cia
l
Org
an
isati
on
al
Org
Eco
no
mic
To
tal H
arm
Sco
re
Fre
qu
en
cy
vo
lum
e
Co
nfi
den
ce S
co
re
To
tal L
ikelih
oo
d
sco
re
Cap
acit
y
Cap
ab
ilit
y
To
tal O
P S
co
re
OP
Gra
din
g
Dwelling Burglary 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 4 24 0 0 0 14.4
Aggravated Burglary 4 2 2 0 2 2 1 13 0.5 2 2 4.5 58.5 0 1 1 35.1
Modern Slavery 4 4 8 0 2 4 4 26 0.5 3 3 6.5 169 3 2 5 169
CSE 4 2 8 0 0 4 4 22 1 0.5 3 4.5 99 3 3 6 198
Dwelling Burglary 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 2 2 1 5 30 0 0 0 18
Aggravated Burglary 4 2 2 0 2 2 1 13 0.5 2 2 4.5 58.5 0 1 1 35.1
Modern Slavery 4 4 8 0 2 4 4 26 0.5 2 3 5.5 143 3 2 5 143
CSE 4 2 8 0 0 4 4 22 1 1 3 5 110 3 3 6 220
Dwelling Burglary 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 4 24 0 0 0 14.4
Aggravated Burglary 4 2 2 0 2 2 1 13 0.5 3 2 5.5 71.5 0 1 1 42.9
Modern Slavery 4 4 8 0 2 4 4 26 0.5 3 3 6.5 169 3 2 5 169
CSE 4 2 8 0 0 4 4 22 1 3 3 7 154 3 3 6 308
Code of EthicsMoRiLE –• Accountability• Fairness• Integrity• Leadership • Objectivity• Openness• Honesty• Respect• Selflessness
Gather Information and IntelligenceMoRiLE – Consistent Information collection and assessment
Assess threat and riskMoRiLE –Consistent assessment of Harm, Likelihood, Risk and Threat
Develop Working StrategyMoRiLE –Methodology identifies greatest Threats, Risks and Harms
Identify options and contingenciesMoRiLE – Capacity and Capability assessment & Methodology facilitate debate and agreement of activity
Take action and review what happened.MoRiLE –Methodology allows assessment of activity and impact
Benefits• Works with NIM & NDM
• Matches resource decisions to risk and harm
• Minimises risk bias and maximises knowledge
• Drives organisations to seek knowledge in a different way and from
different sources
• Allows priorities to be reassessed dynamically as new information is
presented
• Common language and methodology
• Easy to understand and use
• Requires minimal training
• Identifies Intelligence Gaps
• Provides vehicle to establish a national picture of harm
Project deliverables
• Extensive use of models nationally (45 LEAs)
• Thematic Model (Strategic Assessment and Planning)
• Draft Tactical Model – Currently being tested by LEAs
• Organisational Risk Model (commencing Sept 15)
• Vulnerability Risk Model (commencing November 15)
• Home Office - SOC approval
• NPICC – Collaborative working
• SPR & HMIC – Outline interest
• IT Solution – Concept Capability due to commence
top related