MoRiLE
Management of Risk in Law Enforcement
What:
Change
Criminality
Austerity
National
Need
Structured risk modelling methodology
and language
Work in conjunction with NIM and NDM
Supports decision making
Takes account of Capacity and Capability
Why:
To create a national and local picture of
risk
To provide a consistent approach to the
identification of priorities
To assist in the development of
collaborative responses
Inform resource deployment
Mission
Whole system contextualised risk
modelling
Objective
Range of complimentary risk
models that inform decision making
•
•
•
Threat, Risk and Harm
Vulnerability
Capacity and Capability
• Draft Thematic Model & Tactical Models
• Vulnerability & Partnership work streams
• 55+ Using nationally
• 300+ members in “Virtual Group”
• IT Solution development
• Home Office - SOC approval
• SPR – Outline interest
• HMIC – Outline support
The Birmingham Community Safety Partnership:
Strategic Assessment Process 2016
The Birmingham Community Safety Partnership:
Strategic Assessment Process 2016
1. Background
2. Why MoRiLE? (and the process)
3. Writing the document
4. The End Game
5. Summary
The Birmingham Community Safety Partnership:
Strategic Assessment Process 2016
Birmingham
1/5 - Background
- Politics/Personalities
- Representation
- Evidence based interventions value for money
- Measuring success
- Changes in personnel
Logical &
Auditable
2/5 – Why MoRiLE? (and the process)
Logical &
Auditable
• Previous Assessments = Fit for purpose?
• 130 different issues to consider…
o Scouring previous assessments
o Horizon scanning and local media
o Asking those present at meetings
• Community Safety Fund ~ £2.5m (pressure from PCC, budget,
public money)
• Ensuring appropriate representation…
o “Anybody?!”
o Friend of a friend
o Current meetings
• Finding the ‘right’ problems
• Only me!
2/5 – Why MoRiLE? (and the process)
• Arranged meetings – Doodlepoll!
• Made it fit – being pragmatic
• Captured EVERYTHING…
o Recorded and transcribed for prosterity
(and protection) – acoustics!
o Number in a box and the intangible stuff
• Confirmed the summaries were
accurate and sought further views
Logical &
Auditable
3/5 – Writing the document
Logical &
Auditable
- Issues and golden threads selected
- Draft written
- Draft published...
…and the challenges came forth!
o National Intelligence Model (NIM)
o Statutory Instrument 1830 (SI 1830)
o Logical, auditable …anything you do say may be given in
evidence…
o Not my views.
“Argue with 100+ theme leads, experts and practitioners…”
- Consider and act on feedback
- Publish final document
3/5 – Writing the document
Logical &
Auditable
3/5 – Writing the document
Logical &
Auditable
4/5 – The End Game
Logical &
Auditable
• Has MoRiLE made Birmingham a better, safer place to live?
The BCSP has a document upon which interventions can be based
to address the biggest risks to the people of Birmingham.
5/5 – Summary
Logical &
Auditable
 130 issues considered, down to 30 in the document
 7 ‘Golden Threads’ identified
 Confidence when under scrutiny
 Politics/Personalities do not unduly influence priorities
 Broad representation of opinions
 Protection from internal agency changes
 Ability to rapidly re-assess risk levels…
…and reduce workload/cost of next assessment
 Minimal resources to complete (potentially just one analyst)
Implementation
Thematic and Tactical
Similar processes….but very different to implement
Implementation – Thematic Model
• Understand the process
• Walk people through the scoring of thematic issues
• No need for tasking or reporting structures to change
Implementation – Tactical model
•
Cultural Change within the organisation
• Scoping current business areas that will be affected
Internal
Tasking structures
Investigations
Performance
OCGm
BCU’s/LPA’s
External
Local Partnership agencies
Regional units
Implementation – Tactical model
• Identifying key personnel to assist you
Designing how it will work
Identifying potential barriers
To drive change
• Selling the concept and training
Understanding the benefits
Everyone involved/affected briefed
• Making the process work
Various methods – all at once, bit by bit, stealth!
Tactical Model
Draft MoRiLE Tactical Matrix (v1)
IMPACT & HARM
Victim
Community & environment
LIKELIHOOD
Geographic Scope
Organisational
Total Harm Score
How credible is the threat?
Scale of criminality
RISK
Victim vulnerability
Total Likelihood Score
Risk Score
ORGANISATIONAL POSITION
Confidence Score
Confidence Score
Priority
Resourcing
Opportunity
Organisational Position
Grading
CAPABILITY
REPUTATION & POLITICS
ECONOMIC COST
INTENT
CAPABILITY
FREQUENCY
VOLUME
Criminal Intent - The
Criminal Capability The frequency with
Victim type and
CALCULATING TOTAL
motivation and drive of The expertise (resources
The volume of actvity
which the activity is seen
propensity to criminality LIKELIHOOD SCORE
the offender or group to
and abilty) of the
seen to be committed by
to be committed by the
commit crime on a
offender or group to
the individual/group
individual/group
continuing basis
commit crime
PHYSICAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL
FINANCIAL
The physical impact suffered
by an individual
The psychological impact
suffered by an individual
The financial impact suffered
by the victim
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)
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)
Moderate
Medium Term physical
impact requiring medical
assistance.
(0.66)
Medium term, (medium
resource implication for
intermediate time period),
managable within the
agency.
(1)
Serious or frequent
criminal: impact visible,
temporary
(1)
Medium term impact,
increase in concerns
Short term financial impact
Medium term psychological
requires involvement of one
Medium term impact, attracts
which is recoverable within a
Contained within a regional
impact requiring assistance
partner agency to resolve,
the attention of regional
short period of time
area
of local GP
incident is contained within a
media and MEP/party view
(ie.insurance)
(2)
(0.66)
specific area with limted
(1)
(0.66)
damage
(2)
Medium term impact,
Increase in concerns,
Long term psyhcological Medium term financial impact
requires involvement of 2-3
impact, requiring assistance loss is not recoverable due to
partner agencies to resolve,
of local GP.
sentimental nature of loss
incident causes substantial
(1.33)
(1.33)
damage across a large area
(4)
Contained within the UK
(4)
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)
Substantial
Long term physical impact
requiring hospitalisation for
7+ days.
(1.33)
Severe
Loss of individual life
(2.66)
Individual requires specific
treatment which involves
partner agencies (ie
Sectioned)
(2.66)
Critical
Loss of two or more lives
(5.33)
Individual endagers or
causes loss of own life
(5.33)
Catastrophic
The impact on the community How wide a geographic area
The impact on the
CALCULATING TOTAL
The additional cost to the
and environment
the criminality is spreading organisation's reputation and
HARM SCORE
organisation to resolve the
the effect of internal and
issue
external political factors
Mass casualty, impact affects
Inidvidual endagers or
the wider community
causes loss of others lives
(10.66)
(10.66)
Medium term financial
impact, loss is not
recoverable through
insurance and therefore
causes hardship
(2.66)
Add the score for each
Medium term, (medium
of the Harm criteria
Long term impact, attracts the resource implication for
together (Victim
attention of national media or intermediate time period).
(Physical +
national political interest (ie:
Requires additional
Psychological +
party leader)
resources to be sought from
Financial) +
(2)
suitable agencies
Community and
(2)
Environment +
Geographic Scope +
Organisational
(Reputation and
Politics + Economic
Cost) = Total Harm
Score)
Long term impact, attracts the
attention of national media or Long term (large resource
national political interest (ie:
implication for prolonged
party leader), results in key period of time), managable
individuals resigning or
within the agency
being called upon to resign
(4)
(4)
Increase in concerns,
Long term (large resource
Long term financial impact to
requires a multi-agency (4+)
implication for prolonged
an inidvidual or organisation,
International links - but not to
Impact of issue is felt at
response to resolve, incident
period of time) Requires
which causes significant
countries linked to terrorist international levels or attracts
endangers the environment
additional resources to be
hardship (homelessness,
activities
international political interest
and all things living in that
sought from suitable
redundancies)
(16)
(8)
area
agencies
(5.33)
(16)
(8)
Loss of business causing
financial hardship in the
wider community
(10.66)
Critical Incident declared
requiring significant, coInternational links - linked to
ordinated multi-agency (4+)
countries involved in terrorist
approach to resolve, incident
activities
causes permanent damage
(32)
to the environment
(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)
Significant level of
criminality: impact
visible and acute
(1.5)
Extremely high scale,
multiple crime types:
visible, chronic impact.
(2)
CONFIDENCE SCORE
CALCULATING RISK
SCORE
Disorganised, lacks skill
Vulnerable due to
or resources.
Annually or less frequent
location, time or offence
one offence seen every No / Negligible activity (ie working late at petrol
Groups possess
year or less frequent
(0.25)
station, creeper
transient membership.
(0.25)
burglaries)
(0.25)
(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)
Some organisation
seen, may regularly use
violence and or
specialists to achieve
Monthly
goals.
one offence seen every
month
Group membership
(1)
displays a structure and
competence
(1)
Organised, possesses
skills and resources.
Group membership
shows clear sturture and
competance.
(1.5)
Highly organised and
disciplined: expert skills
and resourced, coerce or
corrupt others.
Group membership
shows slear structure
with clear roles
allocated.
(2)
Small Volumes
(0.5)
Moderate Volumes
(1)
VERY LOW
Remote/highly unlikely Improbable/Unlikely
(0-20%chance)
Repeat victims of nonviolent crimes
(1)
Factors exist within the
victim to increase their
propensity to crime ( ie
Hate crimes, drug use, Add the scores from
deprivation factors, high
Likelihood criteria
status individual/family) together (How credible
(2)
is the threat (Intent +
Capability) + Scale of
criminality (How often
+ How Much) + Victim
Vulnerability = Total
Likelihood Score)
How confident are we that the
intelligence picture refects the
true scale of the threat?
LOW
Realistic possibility
(>20% - <50% chance)
Multiply the TOTAL
HARM SCORE by the
TOTAL LIKELIHOOD
SCORE
(Total Harm x Total
Likelihood = Risk
Score)
MEDIUM
Probable/Very likely
(>50% - <70% chance)
Is this a current priority or is
there an obligation to act?
CURRENT RESPONSE
Current activity/response
No
(0)
Responding - significant
impact
(0)
Moral obligation
(1)
Responding - moderate
impact
(1)
CAPACITY
Harm Reduction Oportunity
Do we have the expertise
Do we have resources to and/or equipment required to
How ability of the action to
deal with the issue?
deal with the issue?
reduce the impact or
If already resourced,
If already resourced,
likelihood of the harm
consider if enough resources
consider if the correct
occurring.
are allocated?
skills/equipment are being
utilised?
Yes
(0)
Yes
(0)
CALCULATING THE
ORGANISATIONAL
POSITION SCORE
Little opportunity to reduce
harm
(0)
Limited resourcing issues
Minimal lack of skills and
Limited opportunity reduce
exist but management of the equipment but management harm, likely to reduce harm in
issue continues
of the issue continues
the short term only
(1)
(1)
(1)
Resourcing issues exist
Lack of skills and equipment
Opportunities to reduce harm
which have a limited impact which has a limited impact
Operational/tactical priority Responding - minimal impact
exist, effects likely to last
on the management of the
on the management of the
(2)
(2)
short-mid term duration
issue
issue
(2)
(2)
(2)
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)
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)
Lack of skills and equipment Opportunities to reduce harm
impedes management of the
exist, effects likely to last
issue
mid-long term.
(3)
(3)
No
(4)
Opportunities to reduce harm
exist, effects are likely to be
permanent.
(4)
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.
Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Works with Tasking & 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
Questions?