{"id":21597,"date":"2015-07-15T11:05:37","date_gmt":"2015-07-15T01:05:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=21597"},"modified":"2018-10-30T09:35:40","modified_gmt":"2018-10-29T22:35:40","slug":"public-criminal-threat-assessments-are-about-persuasive-communication","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/public-criminal-threat-assessments-are-about-persuasive-communication\/","title":{"rendered":"Public criminal threat assessments are about persuasive communication"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>The Australian Crime Commission (ACC) report Organised crime in Australia 2015<\/em><\/a> is derived from criminal intelligence, but it\u2019s more useful to understand it as persuasive communication.<\/p>\n In my recent post<\/a>, I highlighted a similar report from the UK\u2019s National Crime Agency, and made the comment that their prioritisation matrix was an innovation that the ACC might consider adopting in the future. This isn\u2019t suggested as a way to shape or set priorities for all law enforcement agencies; rather, its value would be in communicating the ACC\u2019s work to both the public and political leaders without access to criminal intelligence products.<\/p>\n The ACC has published Organised crime in Australia<\/em> regularly since 2008. It does so to \u2018inform the Australian community of the current and emerging organised crime threats that may directly or indirectly impact on our nation\u2019, according to the foreword by CEO Chris Dawson. He makes no claim linking this publication to broader criminal intelligence work or any other agency\u2019s priorities. Indeed, this document doesn\u2019t task national law enforcement bodies\u2014such decisions are made on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.<\/p>\n Instead, the unclassified Organised crime in Australia<\/em> report is about convincing Australians that dealing with organised crime is in the interests of the whole community. That makes it a persuasive document in my view: it\u2019s not partisan, but it\u2019s meant to convince others to do something.<\/p>\n To achieve this, the ACC\u2019s document explains the threats in some detail, but doesn\u2019t draw distinctions among them. I think that additional value could be added by explaining the relative harm of each, and giving the public a broad idea about how the ACC will assign its resources to these crime types.<\/p>\n The ACC has a prioritisation process, which is led by its board<\/a> and is featured in its strategic framework. The ACC also produce other key intelligence documents, namely the Organised Crime Threat Assessment<\/a> and National Criminal Target Report<\/a>. These documents would reflect the ACC\u2019s priorities, but they\u2019re classified.<\/p>\n We can also see the ACC\u2019s priorities reflected in board determinations<\/a>, like the special operations for child sex offences, emerging drug threats and criminal wealth.<\/p>\n Publishing an unclassified, high-level version of the priorities in Organised crime in Australia<\/em> would promote the ACC\u2019s stated outcome of \u2018[reducing] serious and organised crime threats of most harm to Australians and the national interest\u2019 by explaining which particular crimes generate the most harm. This could focus public attention on those crime types in a readily accessible way.<\/p>\n Explaining priorities could also help explain why some crime types receive additional attention over others. For instance, why was it necessary for the Australian government to establish and then extend the National Anti-Gangs Squad<\/a>, taskforces on serious financial crime<\/a> and welfare fraud<\/a>, a multidisciplinary taskforce to develop a national strategy towards the drug ice<\/a>, or use the ACC in counterterrorism<\/a>? Is it because these areas are causing more harm to Australia and Australians than others? Prioritisation could help the public to understand at least part of the reasoning behind these decisions.<\/p>\n