Amanda Huggins

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

What was created

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

Branding

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

IT Solution

Contact Details

DI Chris Dowen – Project Lead 07786 174027

c.dowen@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk

Amanda Huggins – Development and Implementation Manager 07921 938047

amanda.huggins@cambs.pnn.police.uk

Any Questions?