Development and use of digital decision tools for policing and law enforcement

The request was successful.

Dear West Midlands Police,

I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to make a request for information relating to your organisation’s development and/or use of digital decision tools for policing and law enforcement.

By digital decision tools, I mean any technology that uses software algorithms to process digital data and generate outputs either to (a) *support* policing decisions, by providing information or recommendations to a human police officer, who retains discretion in making the final decision; or (b) *automatically* trigger a policing or law enforcement decision based on the generated output(s).

By ‘policing and law enforcement decisions’, I mean any decisions taken by police officers in carrying out their duties to detect and prevent crime, to protect the public and reduce harm, to maintain public order, to enforce the law, and to bring offenders to justice. This may include (but is not limited to) decisions concerning the imposition of enforcement notices (e.g., speeding fines), case/complaints-handling, resource allocation, criminal investigations (particularly those concerning whether to pursue inquiries in relation to specific persons, and what action(s) to take, such as arrest or questioning, stop and search etc.), and decisions made at the pre-trial stage about individuals, including detention and charging decisions.

EXAMPLE TOOLS OF INTEREST

To help with my inquiry, examples of the kinds of tools I am requesting information on include:

1. *Digital dashboards*: any tool which processes and organises data sets to generate data visualisations to assist policing work. For example, they might provide information about ongoing and/or recently reported incidents, the analysis of crime patterns, workload and resource allocation, and data shared with public agencies such as the emergency services. These dashboards might, for instance, be used to improve emergency response times, assist officer decision-making, resource management, and so on. For example, Qliksense.

2. *Individual risk assessment tools*: any tool which processes data to generate predictions about the ‘risk’ posed by an individual relating to an undesirable outcome, such as their risk of committing a serious violent crime in the future, risk of general recidivism, risk of self-harm, or risk of becoming a victim of harm. For example, the London Gangs Matrix or the Harm Assessment Risk Tool (‘HART’) that has previously been used by Durham Constabulary.

3. *Geospatial crime ‘hotspot’ mapping tools*: any tool which processes historical crime data to identify patterns indicating potential crime ‘hotspot’ areas (i.e., geographical locations where crime is predicted to be most likely to occur within a given time period). For example, PredPol.

4. *Automated biometric analysis tools* (including live facial recognition systems): any tool which processes biometric data for the purposes of identifying individuals ‘of interest’ (i.e., according to s.205 of the Data Protection Act 2018: biometric data is data relating to the physical, physiological, or behavioural characteristics of a person, such as facial images, fingerprints, or retina scanning). For example, NeoFace Watch.

5. *Any other tool to assist policing and law enforcement work*: any other tool that uses software algorithms to generate outputs to help inform policing decisions made by your organisation, or to automatically trigger decisions based on those outputs (e.g., Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems, social network analysis, case ‘solvability’ analysis, and so on).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUESTED

My specific information requests are listed and numbered below.

To help reduce the resources needed to respond to my numbered requests, you may limit your detailed responses to *ten* tools, and then simply list the name(s) and policy purpose(s) of any other tools.

If your organisation has deployed and/or developed *ten or fewer* tools in total (including those currently deployed, in development, being piloted or formerly developed or piloted but never deployed), please skip straight to the numbered requests below.

If your organisation has deployed and/or is developing (or has developed) *more* than ten tools in total, please follow the guidance below to identify which ten tools to provide information about, in response to the numbered requests:

● If *more* than ten tools have been deployed for *operational* use by your organisation, please respond to the numbered requests for the ten *most recently* deployed (including those no longer in use) and merely list the name(s) and policy purpose(s) for any other tools that have been deployed or developed (including ones currently in development);

● If your organisation has deployed *fewer* than ten tools for operational use (or none at all), please respond to the numbered requests in relation to any other tools that your organisation is (or was formerly) *developing or piloting,* until you have reached a total of ten tools. Again, please respond for those tools *most recently* put into development or piloted until you reach the limit of ten tools in total, and then simply list the name(s) and policy purpose(s) for any remaining tools.

FOR EACH RELEVANT TOOL (UP TO TEN IN TOTAL), CAN YOU PLEASE:

1. Supply the *name(s)* of each tool, including any tool(s) which are no longer used (or were developed and/or piloted but never deployed).

2. Please specify the stage of maturity of each tool in terms of the following three possibilities (i) currently in operational use or formerly deployed for operational use (ii) currently under development or was developed in the past but never deployed (iii) currently being piloted or was piloted in the past, but never deployed.

3. Explain the *reason(s)* why your organisation decided to develop and/or deploy each tool, including the intended *policy purpose(s)* of the tool (e.g., to reduce criminal offending by aiming to improve the identification of potential victims of a criminal offence or to identify individuals ‘of interest’ to police, using the automated analysis of digital data).

4. Identify the data sources used as ‘inputs’ to the tool and indicate whether this data has been collected from internal police data sources (e.g., crime data), external public-sector data sources (e.g., data held by local authorities), or external data sources made available by private-sector organisations (e.g., mobile communications data). Please further indicate whether the tool is updated with new data on a manual basis, by a human user responsible for inputting data (including how frequently this usually occurs), or if it is updated on a real-time basis using an automated live data feed.

5. Identify the *output(s)* that each tool produces/produced in order to serve its intended policy purpose, and what these outputs are taken to *indicate or signify.* For example: an individual risk assessment tool may produce a ‘risk classification’ for each assessed person (e.g., ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low risk’). What is it, specifically, that each person is at ‘high risk’ or ‘low risk’ of, in this scenario (e.g., being arrested under suspicion of having committed a serious offence within the next two years)?

6. Indicate the kind(s) of *decision(s)* each tool supports/supported or triggers/triggered and about *whom or what*? For example: who to stop and search? Where to send police patrols? Should an arrested person be retained in police custody?

7. Identify the *intended user(s)* of each tool. For example: does/did the tool provide information to a front-line officer on patrol, a duty officer in a custody suite, both, or someone else?

8. *List* and provide electronic copies of any *additional documents* or information relating to each tool, including:
● Any training manuals or materials for staff, promotional materials, briefing papers, reports, or records of performance evaluations and other technical documents that provide overviews or summary information about each tool.
● Any impact assessments (e.g., data protection or human rights impact assessments), or risk assessments, that have been undertaken in relation to the tool or tools indicated.
● Any legal documents relating to the assessment or statement of the legal authorisation/legal basis for using each tool.

FOR TOOLS *CURRENTLY* OR *FORMERLY* IN OPERATIONAL USE ONLY, CAN YOU PLEASE:

9. Please indicate whether in relation to each tool, users receive any *training* about tool-use, indicating what that training consists (or consisted) of, who provides this training (including whether this is in-house or external), and who receives training.

10. Indicate the *time-period* during which each tool was, or had been, in operational use, identifying the *date(s)* when each tool was first deployed (and when its use was ended, if applicable).

11. If your organisation later decided to *stop* the tool’s operational use, can you please further explain your reason(s) for doing so, and indicate when that decision was made?

FOR TOOLS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR PILOTING (OR FORMERLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR PILOTED, BUT NEVER DEPLOYED) ONLY, CAN YOU PLEASE:

12. Indicate the *time period* during which development or piloting for each tool took place/has been taking place, including when development or the pilot began, the *expected/planned launch date* for tools still under development, and whether the launch will be on a pilot basis or for operational use.

13. If your organisation later decided to *abandon the development* of a tool or decided *not to deploy* that tool for operational use following a pilot period, can you please further explain your reason(s) for doing so, and indicate when that decision was made.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If my request is too wide or unclear, I would be grateful for your advice and assistance, under s.16 of the FOIA 2000, explaining why so that I can refine and clarify my request. If any of the information is already in the public domain, please can you direct me to it, using URLs and page references if necessary.

If the release of any of the information requested is legally prohibited on the grounds of breach of confidence, I ask that you supply me with copies of the confidentiality agreement.
I understand that you are required to respond to my request within the 20 working days after you receive this letter. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request.

Yours faithfully and with thanks,

Dr. Adam Harkens

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Thankyou for your e-mail, you have contacted the Freedom of Information
Department

Valid FOI requests will be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. We will endeavour to provide a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days, as defined by the Act, subject to
the application of any statutory exemptions. Where consideration is being
given to the application of any exemptions the 20 working day timescale
may be extended under the terms of the Act to a period considered
reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In
such cases you will be notified. In all cases we shall attempt to deal
with your request at the earliest opportunity.

What can I not access under FOI?
You will not be able to access information:

  *   about yourself. This is a Subject Access
Request<https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...>
(SAR)
  *   about third parties
  *   about your police record
  *   to access legal aid
  *   for employment purposes
  *   for civil proceedings
  *    for insurance requests
  *    in relation to police certificates for the purpose of emigration,
visas and residency
If you want to make a request on any of the above, visit our main website
to find out how:
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...

or make contact with the `Live Chat` team on the force website who will be
able to assist you further.
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.
If it’s not 999, search WMP Online<https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/>

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Mr Harkens

 

FOI Request Reference: 869A/22

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 29/06/2022.

 

REQUEST

 

I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to make a request
for information relating to your organisation’s development and/or use of
digital decision tools for policing and law enforcement.

 

By digital decision tools, I mean any technology that uses software
algorithms to process digital data and generate outputs either to (a)
*support* policing decisions, by providing information or recommendations
to a human police officer, who retains discretion in making the final
decision; or (b) *automatically* trigger a policing or law enforcement
decision based on the generated output(s).

 

By ‘policing and law enforcement decisions’, I mean any decisions taken by
police officers in carrying out their duties to detect and prevent crime,
to protect the public and reduce harm, to maintain public order, to
enforce the law, and to bring offenders to justice. This may include (but
is not limited to) decisions concerning the imposition of enforcement
notices (e.g., speeding fines), case/complaints-handling, resource
allocation, criminal investigations (particularly those concerning whether
to pursue inquiries in relation to specific persons, and what action(s) to
take, such as arrest or questioning, stop and search etc.), and decisions
made at the pre-trial stage about individuals, including detention and
charging decisions.

 

EXAMPLE TOOLS OF INTEREST

 

To help with my inquiry, examples of the kinds of tools I am requesting
information on include:

 

1. *Digital dashboards*: any tool which processes and organises data sets
to generate data visualisations to assist policing work. For example, they
might provide information about ongoing and/or recently reported
incidents, the analysis of crime patterns, workload and resource
allocation, and data shared with public agencies such as the emergency
services. These dashboards might, for instance, be used to improve
emergency response times, assist officer decision-making, resource
management, and so on. For example, Qliksense.

 

2. *Individual risk assessment tools*: any tool which processes data to
generate predictions about the ‘risk’ posed by an individual relating to
an undesirable outcome, such as their risk of committing a serious violent
crime in the future, risk of general recidivism, risk of self-harm, or
risk of becoming a victim of harm. For example, the London Gangs Matrix or
the Harm Assessment Risk Tool (‘HART’) that has previously been used by
Durham Constabulary.

 

3. *Geospatial crime ‘hotspot’ mapping tools*: any tool which processes
historical crime data to identify patterns indicating potential crime
‘hotspot’ areas (i.e., geographical locations where crime is predicted to
be most likely to occur within a given time period). For example, PredPol.

 

4. *Automated biometric analysis tools* (including live facial recognition
systems): any tool which processes biometric data for the purposes of
identifying individuals ‘of interest’ (i.e., according to s.205 of the
Data Protection Act 2018: biometric data is data relating to the physical,
physiological, or behavioural characteristics of a person, such as facial
images, fingerprints, or retina scanning). For example, NeoFace Watch.

 

5. *Any other tool to assist policing and law enforcement work*: any other
tool that uses software algorithms to generate outputs to help inform
policing decisions made by your organisation, or to automatically trigger
decisions based on those outputs (e.g., Automated Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) systems, social network analysis, case ‘solvability’ analysis, and
so on).

 

 

SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUESTED

 

My specific information requests are listed and numbered below.

 

To help reduce the resources needed to respond to my numbered requests,
you may limit your detailed responses to *ten* tools, and then simply list
the name(s) and policy purpose(s) of any other tools.

 

If your organisation has deployed and/or developed *ten or fewer* tools in
total (including those currently deployed, in development, being piloted
or formerly developed or piloted but never deployed), please skip straight
to the numbered requests below.

 

If your organisation has deployed and/or is developing (or has developed)
*more* than ten tools in total, please follow the guidance below to
identify which ten tools to provide information about, in response to the
numbered requests:

 

● If *more* than ten tools have been deployed for *operational* use by
your organisation, please respond to the numbered requests for the ten
*most recently* deployed (including those no longer in use) and merely
list the name(s) and policy purpose(s) for any other tools that have been
deployed or developed (including ones currently in development);

 

● If your organisation has deployed *fewer* than ten tools for operational
use (or none at all), please respond to the numbered requests in relation
to any other tools that your organisation is (or was formerly) *developing
or piloting,* until you have reached a total of ten tools. Again, please
respond for those tools *most recently* put into development or piloted
until you reach the limit of ten tools in total, and then simply list the
name(s) and policy purpose(s) for any remaining tools.

 

FOR EACH RELEVANT TOOL (UP TO TEN IN TOTAL), CAN YOU PLEASE:

 

1. Supply the *name(s)* of each tool, including any tool(s) which are no
longer used (or were developed and/or piloted but never deployed).

 

2. Please specify the stage of maturity of each tool in terms of the
following three possibilities (i) currently in operational use or formerly
deployed for operational use (ii) currently under development or was
developed in the past but never deployed (iii) currently being piloted or
was piloted in the past, but never deployed.

 

3. Explain the *reason(s)* why your organisation decided to develop and/or
deploy each tool, including the intended *policy purpose(s)* of the tool
(e.g., to reduce criminal offending by aiming to improve the
identification of potential victims of a criminal offence or to identify
individuals ‘of interest’ to police, using the automated analysis of
digital data).

 

4. Identify the data sources used as ‘inputs’ to the tool and indicate
whether this data has been collected from internal police data sources
(e.g., crime data), external public-sector data sources (e.g., data held
by local authorities), or external data sources made available by
private-sector organisations (e.g., mobile communications data). Please
further indicate whether the tool is updated with new data on a manual
basis, by a human user responsible for inputting data (including how
frequently this usually occurs), or if it is updated on a real-time basis
using an automated live data feed.

 

5. Identify the *output(s)* that each tool produces/produced in order to
serve its intended policy purpose, and what these outputs are taken to
*indicate or signify.* For example: an individual risk assessment tool may
produce a ‘risk classification’ for each assessed person (e.g., ‘high’,
‘medium’ or ‘low risk’). What is it, specifically, that each person is at
‘high risk’ or ‘low risk’ of, in this scenario (e.g., being arrested under
suspicion of having committed a serious offence within the next two
years)?

 

6. Indicate the kind(s) of *decision(s)* each tool supports/supported or
triggers/triggered and about *whom or what*? For example: who to stop and
search? Where to send police patrols? Should an arrested person be
retained in police custody?

 

7. Identify the *intended user(s)* of each tool. For example: does/did the
tool provide information to a front-line officer on patrol, a duty officer
in a custody suite, both, or someone else?

 

8. *List* and provide electronic copies of any *additional documents* or
information relating to each tool, including:

 

●       Any training manuals or materials for staff, promotional
materials, briefing papers, reports, or records of performance evaluations
and other technical documents that provide overviews or summary
information about each tool.

 

●       Any impact assessments (e.g., data protection or human rights
impact assessments), or risk assessments, that have been undertaken in
relation to the tool or tools indicated.

 

●       Any legal documents relating to the assessment or statement of the
legal authorisation/legal basis for using each tool.

 

FOR TOOLS *CURRENTLY* OR *FORMERLY* IN OPERATIONAL USE ONLY, CAN YOU
PLEASE:

 

9. Please indicate whether in relation to each tool, users receive any
*training* about tool-use, indicating what that training consists (or
consisted) of, who provides this training (including whether this is
in-house or external), and who receives training.

 

10. Indicate the *time-period* during which each tool was, or had been, in
operational use, identifying the *date(s)* when each tool was first
deployed (and when its use was ended, if applicable).

 

11. If your organisation later decided to *stop* the tool’s operational
use, can you please further explain your reason(s) for doing so, and
indicate when that decision was made?

 

FOR TOOLS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR PILOTING (OR FORMERLY UNDER
DEVELOPMENT OR PILOTED, BUT NEVER DEPLOYED) ONLY, CAN YOU PLEASE:

 

12.  Indicate the *time period* during which development or piloting for
each tool took place/has been taking place, including when development or
the pilot began, the *expected/planned launch date* for tools still under
development, and whether the launch will be on a pilot basis or for
operational use.

 

13.  If your organisation later decided to *abandon the development* of a
tool or decided *not to deploy* that tool for operational use following a
pilot period, can you please further explain your reason(s) for doing so,
and indicate when that decision was made.

 

The FOI Act obliges us to respond to requests promptly and in any case no
later than 20 working days after receiving your request. We must consider
firstly whether we can comply with section 1(1) (a) of the Act, which is
our duty to confirm whether or not the information requested is held and
secondly we must comply with section 1(1)(b), which is the provision of
such information.

 

However, when a qualified exemption applies to the confirmation provision
of the information and the public interest test is engaged, the Act allows
the time for response to be longer than 20 working days, if the balance of
such public interest is undetermined. In this case we have not yet reached
a decision on where the balance of the public interest lies in respect of
either of the above obligations.

 

We estimate that it will take an additional 20 working days to make a
decision on where this balance lies. Therefore, we plan to let you have a
response by 22/08/2022. If it appears that it will take longer than this
to reach a conclusion, you will be kept informed. The specific exemption
which applies in relation to this information is S31 – Law Enforcement.

 

I apologise for any inconvenience. We aim to provide you with a meaningful
response as soon as possible.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log

 

[1]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[2]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

If you need any further information please contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Andrea Mobberley

Freedom of Information

Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

 

[3][WMP request email]

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

   

View all our social network links

 

Our vision: Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in
need

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
2. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...
3. mailto:[WMP request email]

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Dr Harkens

 

FOI Request Reference: 869A/22

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 29/06/2022.  I
apologise for the delay in responding.

 

REQUEST

 

I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to make a request
for information relating to your organisation’s development and/or use of
digital decision tools for policing and law enforcement.

 

By digital decision tools, I mean any technology that uses software
algorithms to process digital data and generate outputs either to (a)
*support* policing decisions, by providing information or recommendations
to a human police officer, who retains discretion in making the final
decision; or (b) *automatically* trigger a policing or law enforcement
decision based on the generated output(s).

 

By ‘policing and law enforcement decisions’, I mean any decisions taken by
police officers in carrying out their duties to detect and prevent crime,
to protect the public and reduce harm, to maintain public order, to
enforce the law, and to bring offenders to justice. This may include (but
is not limited to) decisions concerning the imposition of enforcement
notices (e.g., speeding fines), case/complaints-handling, resource
allocation, criminal investigations (particularly those concerning whether
to pursue inquiries in relation to specific persons, and what action(s) to
take, such as arrest or questioning, stop and search etc.), and decisions
made at the pre-trial stage about individuals, including detention and
charging decisions.

 

EXAMPLE TOOLS OF INTEREST

 

To help with my inquiry, examples of the kinds of tools I am requesting
information on include:

 

1. *Digital dashboards*: any tool which processes and organises data sets
to generate data visualisations to assist policing work. For example, they
might provide information about ongoing and/or recently reported
incidents, the analysis of crime patterns, workload and resource
allocation, and data shared with public agencies such as the emergency
services. These dashboards might, for instance, be used to improve
emergency response times, assist officer decision-making, resource
management, and so on. For example, Qliksense.

 

2. *Individual risk assessment tools*: any tool which processes data to
generate predictions about the ‘risk’ posed by an individual relating to
an undesirable outcome, such as their risk of committing a serious violent
crime in the future, risk of general recidivism, risk of self-harm, or
risk of becoming a victim of harm. For example, the London Gangs Matrix or
the Harm Assessment Risk Tool (‘HART’) that has previously been used by
Durham Constabulary.

 

3. *Geospatial crime ‘hotspot’ mapping tools*: any tool which processes
historical crime data to identify patterns indicating potential crime
‘hotspot’ areas (i.e., geographical locations where crime is predicted to
be most likely to occur within a given time period). For example, PredPol.

 

4. *Automated biometric analysis tools* (including live facial recognition
systems): any tool which processes biometric data for the purposes of
identifying individuals ‘of interest’ (i.e., according to s.205 of the
Data Protection Act 2018: biometric data is data relating to the physical,
physiological, or behavioural characteristics of a person, such as facial
images, fingerprints, or retina scanning). For example, NeoFace Watch.

 

5. *Any other tool to assist policing and law enforcement work*: any other
tool that uses software algorithms to generate outputs to help inform
policing decisions made by your organisation, or to automatically trigger
decisions based on those outputs (e.g., Automated Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) systems, social network analysis, case ‘solvability’ analysis, and
so on).

 

SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUESTED

 

My specific information requests are listed and numbered below.

 

To help reduce the resources needed to respond to my numbered requests,
you may limit your detailed responses to *ten* tools, and then simply list
the name(s) and policy purpose(s) of any other tools.

 

If your organisation has deployed and/or developed *ten or fewer* tools in
total (including those currently deployed, in development, being piloted
or formerly developed or piloted but never deployed), please skip straight
to the numbered requests below.

 

If your organisation has deployed and/or is developing (or has developed)
*more* than ten tools in total, please follow the guidance below to
identify which ten tools to provide information about, in response to the
numbered requests:

 

● If *more* than ten tools have been deployed for *operational* use by
your organisation, please respond to the numbered requests for the ten
*most recently* deployed (including those no longer in use) and merely
list the name(s) and policy purpose(s) for any other tools that have been
deployed or developed (including ones currently in development);

 

● If your organisation has deployed *fewer* than ten tools for operational
use (or none at all), please respond to the numbered requests in relation
to any other tools that your organisation is (or was formerly) *developing
or piloting,* until you have reached a total of ten tools. Again, please
respond for those tools *most recently* put into development or piloted
until you reach the limit of ten tools in total, and then simply list the
name(s) and policy purpose(s) for any remaining tools.

 

FOR EACH RELEVANT TOOL (UP TO TEN IN TOTAL), CAN YOU PLEASE:

 

1. Supply the *name(s)* of each tool, including any tool(s) which are no
longer used (or were developed and/or piloted but never deployed).

 

2. Please specify the stage of maturity of each tool in terms of the
following three possibilities (i) currently in operational use or formerly
deployed for operational use (ii) currently under development or was
developed in the past but never deployed (iii) currently being piloted or
was piloted in the past, but never deployed.

 

3. Explain the *reason(s)* why your organisation decided to develop and/or
deploy each tool, including the intended *policy purpose(s)* of the tool
(e.g., to reduce criminal offending by aiming to improve the
identification of potential victims of a criminal offence or to identify
individuals ‘of interest’ to police, using the automated analysis of
digital data).

 

4. Identify the data sources used as ‘inputs’ to the tool and indicate
whether this data has been collected from internal police data sources
(e.g., crime data), external public-sector data sources (e.g., data held
by local authorities), or external data sources made available by
private-sector organisations (e.g., mobile communications data). Please
further indicate whether the tool is updated with new data on a manual
basis, by a human user responsible for inputting data (including how
frequently this usually occurs), or if it is updated on a real-time basis
using an automated live data feed.

 

5. Identify the *output(s)* that each tool produces/produced in order to
serve its intended policy purpose, and what these outputs are taken to
*indicate or signify.* For example: an individual risk assessment tool may
produce a ‘risk classification’ for each assessed person (e.g., ‘high’,
‘medium’ or ‘low risk’). What is it, specifically, that each person is at
‘high risk’ or ‘low risk’ of, in this scenario (e.g., being arrested under
suspicion of having committed a serious offence within the next two
years)?

 

6. Indicate the kind(s) of *decision(s)* each tool supports/supported or
triggers/triggered and about *whom or what*? For example: who to stop and
search? Where to send police patrols? Should an arrested person be
retained in police custody?

 

7. Identify the *intended user(s)* of each tool. For example: does/did the
tool provide information to a front-line officer on patrol, a duty officer
in a custody suite, both, or someone else?

 

8. *List* and provide electronic copies of any *additional documents* or
information relating to each tool, including:

 

●       Any training manuals or materials for staff, promotional
materials, briefing papers, reports, or records of performance evaluations
and other technical documents that provide overviews or summary
information about each tool.

 

●       Any impact assessments (e.g., data protection or human rights
impact assessments), or risk assessments, that have been undertaken in
relation to the tool or tools indicated.

 

●       Any legal documents relating to the assessment or statement of the
legal authorisation/legal basis for using each tool.

 

FOR TOOLS *CURRENTLY* OR *FORMERLY* IN OPERATIONAL USE ONLY, CAN YOU
PLEASE:

 

9. Please indicate whether in relation to each tool, users receive any
*training* about tool-use, indicating what that training consists (or
consisted) of, who provides this training (including whether this is
in-house or external), and who receives training.

 

10. Indicate the *time-period* during which each tool was, or had been, in
operational use, identifying the *date(s)* when each tool was first
deployed (and when its use was ended, if applicable).

 

11. If your organisation later decided to *stop* the tool’s operational
use, can you please further explain your reason(s) for doing so, and
indicate when that decision was made?

 

FOR TOOLS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR PILOTING (OR FORMERLY UNDER
DEVELOPMENT OR PILOTED, BUT NEVER DEPLOYED) ONLY, CAN YOU PLEASE:

 

12.  Indicate the *time period* during which development or piloting for
each tool took place/has been taking place, including when development or
the pilot began, the *expected/planned launch date* for tools still under
development, and whether the launch will be on a pilot basis or for
operational use.

 

13.  If your organisation later decided to *abandon the development* of a
tool or decided *not to deploy* that tool for operational use following a
pilot period, can you please further explain your reason(s) for doing so,
and indicate when that decision was made.

 

RESPONSE

 

Our data are not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide this
information within the appropriate (cost) limit within the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act (see ‘Reason for Decision’ below).

 

I am unable to suggest any practical way in which your request may be
modified in order to satisfy your query or bring it within the 18 hours
stipulated by the Regulations. I am however willing to consider any
refinements that you are able to make to your request, in accordance with
Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act.  If you would like to look
into refining your request please contact me.

 

REASON FOR DECISION

 

Please note that researching each individual case would exceed the
appropriate limit (FOIA, s.12).  We would need to engage with all areas of
the business to establish the tools captured by this request, including
those currently used, under development and formally used, we would then
need to work out when they were last deployed, this search would exceed
the FOI time limit.

 

The cost of compliance with the whole of your request is above the amount
to which we are legally required to respond, i.e. the cost of locating and
retrieving the information would exceed the appropriate costs limit under
section 12(1) of the FOI Act 2000. For West Midlands Police, the
appropriate limit is set at £450, as prescribed by the Freedom of
Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations
2004, S.I. 3244.

 

Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here:

 

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log

 

[1]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[2]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to
contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Andrea Mobberley

Freedom of Information

Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

 

[3][WMP request email]

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

   

View all our social network links

 

Our vision: Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in
need

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
2. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...
3. mailto:[WMP request email]

Dear Andrea,

Many thanks for your response and for taking the time to consider my freedom of information request. I am writing with suggested refinements to my initial request, and to ask that you re-consider it in light of these suggestions.

If there are other ways that I can refine my request so that the scope remains within the appropriate limit under the FOIA2000, I would greatly appreciate your advice.

Before setting out my suggested refinements, I would first like to highlight that my request was carefully designed to ensure the time required to respond to it was kept to a minimum. For example, as set out in my initial request, I have advised that information is only being requested for up to ten relevant tools (chosen on the basis of being most recently deployed for operational use, most recently piloted, or most recently developed). This has been achievable by other forces, who organised their responses using a simple table. Such a table sets out shortened forms of my requests in rows, with their direct responses on a tool-by-tool basis in the columns. Using a table like this, or a similar format, may help to reduce the time needed to extract and present any relevant information that I have requested. There should be no need to redact any information using this format, and the responses can be quite short.

Here is a response with an example table:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

A direct link to the document is available here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/8...

Considering the above, if you believe that further refinements are still required, I suggest that the scope of my request can be reduced in at least three ways.

Firstly, I can remove my request for “electronic copies of any *additional documents* or information relating to each tool” (number 7). This request may be a significant contributor to the cost of identifying, locating, retrieving, and extracting the relevant information. I would therefore be happy to remove this request if it is too onerous.

Secondly, I can limit the scope of my request to those tools that are *currently in operation only*, again with a view to reducing the time required to identify, locate, and extract the relevant information. You can limit the number of tools to ten (or to a number that you deem suitable to keeping the response within scope of s.12 FOIA), chosen on the basis of those that have *most recently been deployed.* This will reduce the number of tools within scope, and remove the need for you to respond to requests 11 and 12.

Thirdly, I can limit the time-frame of the request to the *last five years*.

I hope that my suggestions can help us to find a productive compromise, and I appreciate the time you have taken to consider and respond to my request. Please can you let me know if you find these suggestions to be suitable, and provide me with an update on the status of my request as a result? I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely and with thanks,

Adam

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Thankyou for your e-mail, you have contacted the Freedom of Information
Department

Valid FOI requests will be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. We will endeavour to provide a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days, as defined by the Act, subject to
the application of any statutory exemptions. Where consideration is being
given to the application of any exemptions the 20 working day timescale
may be extended under the terms of the Act to a period considered
reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In
such cases you will be notified. In all cases we shall attempt to deal
with your request at the earliest opportunity.

What can I not access under FOI?
You will not be able to access information:

  *   about yourself. This is a Subject Access
Request<https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...>
(SAR)
  *   about third parties
  *   about your police record
  *   to access legal aid
  *   for employment purposes
  *   for civil proceedings
  *    for insurance requests
  *    in relation to police certificates for the purpose of emigration,
visas and residency
If you want to make a request on any of the above, visit our main website
to find out how:
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...

or make contact with the `Live Chat` team on the force website who will be
able to assist you further.
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.
If it’s not 999, search WMP Online<https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/>

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Dr Harkens

 

FOI Request Reference: 869A/22

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 22/08/2022.

 

REQUEST

 

Many thanks for your response and for taking the time to consider my
freedom of information request. I am writing with suggested refinements to
my initial request, and to ask that you re-consider it in light of these
suggestions.

 

If there are other ways that I can refine my request so that the scope
remains within the appropriate limit under the FOIA2000, I would greatly
appreciate your advice.

 

Before setting out my suggested refinements, I would first like to
highlight that my request was carefully designed to ensure the time
required to respond to it was kept to a minimum. For example, as set out
in my initial request, I have advised that information is only being
requested for up to ten relevant tools (chosen on the basis of being most
recently deployed for operational use, most recently piloted, or most
recently developed). This has been achievable by other forces, who
organised their responses using a simple table. Such a table sets out
shortened forms of my requests in rows, with their direct responses on a
tool-by-tool basis in the columns. Using a table like this, or a similar
format, may help to reduce the time needed to extract and present any
relevant information that I have requested. There should be no need to
redact any information using this format, and the responses can be quite
short.

 

Here is a response with an example table:

 

[1]https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo......

 

A direct link to the document is available here:

 

[2]https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo......

 

Considering the above, if you believe that further refinements are still
required, I suggest that the scope of my request can be reduced in at
least three ways.

 

Firstly, I can remove my request for “electronic copies of any *additional
documents* or information relating to each tool” (number 7). This request
may be a significant contributor to the cost of identifying, locating,
retrieving, and extracting the relevant information. I would therefore be
happy to remove this request if it is too onerous.

 

Secondly, I can limit the scope of my request to those tools that are
*currently in operation only*, again with a view to reducing the time
required to identify, locate, and extract the relevant information. You
can limit the number of tools to ten (or to a number that you deem
suitable to keeping the response within scope of s.12 FOIA), chosen on the
basis of those that have *most recently been deployed.* This will reduce
the number of tools within scope, and remove the need for you to respond
to requests 11 and 12.

 

Thirdly, I can limit the time-frame of the request to the *last five
years*.

 

I hope that my suggestions can help us to find a productive compromise,
and I appreciate the time you have taken to consider and respond to my
request. Please can you let me know if you find these suggestions to be
suitable, and provide me with an update on the status of my request as a
result? I look forward to hearing from you.

 

RESPONSE

 

As previously stated our data are not organised in such a way as to allow
us to provide this information within the appropriate (cost) limit within
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act (see ‘Reason for Decision’ below).

 

I am unable to suggest any practical way in which your request may be
modified in order to satisfy your query or bring it within the 18 hours
stipulated by the Regulations. I am however willing to consider any
refinements that you are able to make to your request, in accordance with
Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act.  If you would like to look
into refining your request please contact me.

 

REASON FOR DECISION

 

Please note that researching each individual case would exceed the
appropriate limit (FOIA, s.12).

 

We would need to engage with all areas of the business to establish the
tools captured by this refined request, including those currently used,
under development and formally used, we would then need to work out when
they were last deployed, even though the request requirements have been
reduced, this search would still exceed the FOI time limit.

 

The cost of compliance with the whole of your request is above the amount
to which we are legally required to respond, i.e. the cost of locating and
retrieving the information would exceed the appropriate costs limit under
section 12(1) of the FOI Act 2000. For West Midlands Police, the
appropriate limit is set at £450, as prescribed by the Freedom of
Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations
2004, S.I. 3244.

 

Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here:

 

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log

 

[3]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[4]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to
contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Andrea Mobberley

Freedom of Information

Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

 

[5][WMP request email]

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

   

View all our social network links

 

Our vision: Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in
need

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
4. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...
5. mailto:[WMP request email]

Dear Andrea,

Many thanks for considering my refinements again.

I am writing with another attempt to reduce the scope of my request to a level which West Midlands Police would be reasonable able to comply with.

In particular, I have reduced the scope of example tools, to now focus on three types of technology:
- Individual risk assessment tools
- Geospatial hotspot mapping tools
- Automated biometric analysis tools

This should significantly reduce the number of digital tools that would be within scope of my request, and my understanding is that these kinds of tools should be put before the WMP Ethics Committee for consideration - making it more likely that this information is held in a retrievable format.

Additionally considering my previous suggested refinements, I have re-written my request for clarity below this email. As set out in my previous refinements, I am now *only* requesting information on tools currently in operation - this should cut down the costs of compliance.

Can you please let me know if my updated request will fall within the reasonable costs limit?

Many thanks,

Adam

------------------------

Dear West Midlands Police,

I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to make a request for information relating to your organisation’s development and/or use of digital decision tools for policing and law enforcement.

By digital decision tools, I mean any technology that uses software algorithms to process digital data and generate outputs either to (a) *support* policing decisions, by providing information or recommendations to a human police officer, who retains discretion in making the final decision; or (b) *automatically* trigger a policing or law enforcement decision based on the generated output(s).

By ‘policing and law enforcement decisions’, I mean any decisions taken by police officers in carrying out their duties to detect and prevent crime, to protect the public and reduce harm, to maintain public order, to enforce the law, and to bring offenders to justice. This may include (but is not limited to) decisions concerning the imposition of enforcement notices (e.g., speeding fines), case/complaints-handling, resource allocation, criminal investigations (particularly those concerning whether to pursue inquiries in relation to specific persons, and what action(s) to take, such as arrest or questioning, stop and search etc.), and decisions made at the pre-trial stage about individuals, including detention and charging decisions.

EXAMPLE TOOLS OF INTEREST

To help with my inquiry, examples of the kinds of tools I am requesting information on tools including:

1. *Individual risk assessment tools*: any tool which processes data to generate predictions about the ‘risk’ posed by an individual relating to an undesirable outcome, such as their risk of committing a serious violent crime in the future, risk of general recidivism, risk of self-harm, or risk of becoming a victim of harm. For example, the London Gangs Matrix or the Harm Assessment Risk Tool (‘HART’) that has previously been used by Durham Constabulary.

2. *Geospatial crime ‘hotspot’ mapping tools*: any tool which processes historical crime data to identify patterns indicating potential crime ‘hotspot’ areas (i.e., geographical locations where crime is predicted to be most likely to occur within a given time period). For example, PredPol.

3. *Automated biometric analysis tools* (including live facial recognition systems): any tool which processes biometric data for the purposes of identifying individuals ‘of interest’ (i.e., according to s.205 of the Data Protection Act 2018: biometric data is data relating to the physical, physiological, or behavioural characteristics of a person, such as facial images, fingerprints, or retina scanning). For example, NeoFace Watch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUESTED

My specific information requests are listed and numbered below. Please provide information related to tools by your police force.

To help reduce the resources needed to respond to my numbered requests, you may limit your responses to *ten* tools.
If your organisation has deployed *ten or fewer* tools in total (including those currently deployed, in development, being piloted or formerly developed or piloted but never deployed), please skip straight to the numbered requests below.
If your organisation has deployed and/or is developing (or has developed) *more* than ten tools in total, please respond to the numbered requests for the ten *most recently* deployed.

FOR EACH RELEVANT TOOL (UP TO TEN IN TOTAL), CAN YOU PLEASE:
1. Supply the *name(s)* of each tool.

2. Explain the *reason(s)* why your organisation decided to develop and/or deploy each tool, including the intended *policy purpose(s)* of the tool (e.g., to reduce criminal offending by aiming to improve the identification of potential victims of a criminal offence or to identify individuals ‘of interest’ to police, using the automated analysis of digital data).

3. Identify the data sources used as ‘inputs’ to the tool and indicate whether this data has been collected from internal police data sources (e.g., crime data), external public-sector data sources (e.g., data held by local authorities), or external data sources made available by private-sector organisations (e.g., mobile communications data). Please further indicate whether the tool is updated with new data on a manual basis, by a human user responsible for inputting data (including how frequently this usually occurs), or if it is updated on a real-time basis using an automated live data feed.

4. Identify the *output(s)* that each tool produces/produced in order to serve its intended policy purpose, and what these outputs are taken to *indicate or signify.* For example: an individual risk assessment tool may produce a ‘risk classification’ for each assessed person (e.g., ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low risk’). What is it, specifically, that each person is at ‘high risk’ or ‘low risk’ of, in this scenario (e.g., being arrested under suspicion of having committed a serious offence within the next two years)?

5. Indicate the kind(s) of *decision(s)* each tool supports/supported or triggers/triggered and about *whom or what*? For example: who to stop and search? Where to send police patrols? Should an arrested person be retained in police custody?
6. Identify the *intended user(s)* of each tool. For example: does/did the tool provide information to a front-line officer on patrol, a duty officer in a custody suite, both, or someone else?

7. Please indicate whether in relation to each tool, users receive any *training* about tool-use, indicating what that training consists (or consisted) of, who provides this training (including whether this is in-house or external), and who receives training.

8. Indicate the *date(s)* when each tool was first deployed (and when its use was ended, if applicable).

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Dr Harkens

 

FOI Request Reference: 1190A/22

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 12/09/2022.

 

REQUEST

 

Many thanks for considering my refinements again.

 

I am writing with another attempt to reduce the scope of my request to a
level which West Midlands Police would be reasonable able to comply with.

 

In particular, I have reduced the scope of example tools, to now focus on
three types of technology:

 

- Individual risk assessment tools

 

- Geospatial hotspot mapping tools

 

- Automated biometric analysis tools

 

This should significantly reduce the number of digital tools that would be
within scope of my request, and my understanding is that these kinds of
tools should be put before the WMP Ethics Committee for consideration -
making it more likely that this information is held in a retrievable
format.

 

Additionally, considering my previous suggested refinements, I have
re-written my request for clarity below this email. As set out in my
previous refinements, I am now *only* requesting information on tools
currently in operation - this should cut down the costs of compliance.

 

Can you please let me know if my updated request will fall within the
reasonable costs limit?

 

CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

 

I am writing to ask you to clarify your request. This is because we are
not certain that we have understood your request correctly.

 

Therefore, I should be grateful if you would clarify that the following is
the information that you require?

 

If your organisation has deployed *ten or fewer* tools in total (including
those currently deployed, in development, being piloted or formerly
developed or piloted but never deployed), please skip straight to the
numbered requests below.

 

If your organisation has deployed and/or is developing (or has developed)
*more* than ten tools in total, please respond to the numbered requests
for the ten *most recently* deployed.

 

In particular, I have focused on three types of technology:

 

- Individual risk assessment tools

 

- Geospatial hotspot mapping tools

 

- Automated biometric analysis tools

 

FOR EACH RELEVANT TOOL (UP TO TEN IN TOTAL), CAN YOU PLEASE:

 

1. Supply the *name(s)* of each tool.

 

2. Explain the *reason(s)* why your organisation decided to develop and/or
deploy each tool, including the intended *policy purpose(s)* of the tool
(e.g., to reduce criminal offending by aiming to improve the
identification of potential victims of a criminal offence or to identify
individuals ‘of interest’ to police, using the automated analysis of
digital data).

 

3. Identify the data sources used as ‘inputs’ to the tool and indicate
whether this data has been collected from internal police data sources
(e.g., crime data), external public-sector data sources (e.g., data held
by local authorities), or external data sources made available by
private-sector organisations (e.g., mobile communications data). Please
further indicate whether the tool is updated with new data on a manual
basis, by a human user responsible for inputting data (including how
frequently this usually occurs), or if it is updated on a real-time basis
using an automated live data feed.

 

4. Identify the *output(s)* that each tool produces/produced in order to
serve its intended policy purpose, and what these outputs are taken to
*indicate or signify.* For example: an individual risk assessment tool may
produce a ‘risk classification’ for each assessed person (e.g., ‘high’,
‘medium’ or ‘low risk’). What is it, specifically, that each person is at
‘high risk’ or ‘low risk’ of, in this scenario (e.g., being arrested under
suspicion of having committed a serious offence within the next two
years)?

 

5. Indicate the kind(s) of *decision(s)* each tool supports/supported or
triggers/triggered and about *whom or what*? For example: who to stop and
search? Where to send police patrols? Should an arrested person be
retained in police custody?

 

6. Identify the *intended user(s)* of each tool. For example: does/did the
tool provide information to a front-line officer on patrol, a duty officer
in a custody suite, both, or someone else?

 

7. Please indicate whether in relation to each tool, users receive any
*training* about tool-use, indicating what that training consists (or
consisted) of, who provides this training (including whether this is
in-house or external), and who receives training.

 

8. Indicate the *date(s)* when each tool was first deployed (and when its
use was ended, if applicable).

 

Please contact me if you need assistance with this.

 

To enable us to proceed with your request I would be grateful if you could
provide the clarification outlined above within 40 working days of this
correspondence. After receiving your reply, your request will be
considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale
of 20 working days, as defined by the Act, subject to the application of
any statutory exemptions. If you choose not to respond then your request
will be closed.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log

 

[1]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

If you need any further information please contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Andrea Mobberley

Freedom of Information

Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

 

[2][WMP request email]

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

   

View all our social network links

 

Our vision: Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in
need

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
2. mailto:[WMP request email]

Dear West Midlands Police,

I am writing in response to your question set out below:

"CLARIFICATION REQUIRED
I am writing to ask you to clarify your request. This is because we are
not certain that we have understood your request correctly.
Therefore, I should we grateful if you would clarify that the following is
the information that you require?"

I can confirm that the refined request, as you have set out in your previous email, is correct.

Many thanks,

Adam

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Dr Harkens

 

FOI Request Reference: 1190A/22

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 12/09/2022.

 

REQUEST

 

Many thanks for considering my refinements again.

 

I am writing with another attempt to reduce the scope of my request to a
level which West Midlands Police would be reasonable able to comply with.

 

In particular, I have reduced the scope of example tools, to now focus on
three types of technology:

 

- Individual risk assessment tools

 

- Geospatial hotspot mapping tools

 

- Automated biometric analysis tools

 

This should significantly reduce the number of digital tools that would be
within scope of my request, and my understanding is that these kinds of
tools should be put before the WMP Ethics Committee for consideration -
making it more likely that this information is held in a retrievable
format.

 

Additionally, considering my previous suggested refinements, I have
re-written my request for clarity below this email. As set out in my
previous refinements, I am now *only* requesting information on tools
currently in operation - this should cut down the costs of compliance.

 

Can you please let me know if my updated request will fall within the
reasonable costs limit?

 

CLARIFICATION HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED TO CONFIRM THAT THE BELOW IS THE
INFORMATION REQUIRED

 

If your organisation has deployed *ten or fewer* tools in total (including
those currently deployed, in development, being piloted or formerly
developed or piloted but never deployed), please skip straight to the
numbered requests below.

 

If your organisation has deployed and/or is developing (or has developed)
*more* than ten tools in total, please respond to the numbered requests
for the ten *most recently* deployed.

 

In particular, I have focused on three types of technology:

 

- Individual risk assessment tools

 

- Geospatial hotspot mapping tools

 

- Automated biometric analysis tools

 

FOR EACH RELEVANT TOOL (UP TO TEN IN TOTAL), CAN YOU PLEASE:

 

1. Supply the *name(s)* of each tool.

 

2. Explain the *reason(s)* why your organisation decided to develop and/or
deploy each tool, including the intended *policy purpose(s)* of the tool
(e.g., to reduce criminal offending by aiming to improve the
identification of potential victims of a criminal offence or to identify
individuals ‘of interest’ to police, using the automated analysis of
digital data).

 

3. Identify the data sources used as ‘inputs’ to the tool and indicate
whether this data has been collected from internal police data sources
(e.g., crime data), external public-sector data sources (e.g., data held
by local authorities), or external data sources made available by
private-sector organisations (e.g., mobile communications data). Please
further indicate whether the tool is updated with new data on a manual
basis, by a human user responsible for inputting data (including how
frequently this usually occurs), or if it is updated on a real-time basis
using an automated live data feed.

 

4. Identify the *output(s)* that each tool produces/produced in order to
serve its intended policy purpose, and what these outputs are taken to
*indicate or signify.* For example: an individual risk assessment tool may
produce a ‘risk classification’ for each assessed person (e.g., ‘high’,
‘medium’ or ‘low risk’). What is it, specifically, that each person is at
‘high risk’ or ‘low risk’ of, in this scenario (e.g., being arrested under
suspicion of having committed a serious offence within the next two
years)?

 

5. Indicate the kind(s) of *decision(s)* each tool supports/supported or
triggers/triggered and about *whom or what*? For example: who to stop and
search? Where to send police patrols? Should an arrested person be
retained in police custody?

 

6. Identify the *intended user(s)* of each tool. For example: does/did the
tool provide information to a front-line officer on patrol, a duty officer
in a custody suite, both, or someone else?

 

7. Please indicate whether in relation to each tool, users receive any
*training* about tool-use, indicating what that training consists (or
consisted) of, who provides this training (including whether this is
in-house or external), and who receives training.

 

8. Indicate the *date(s)* when each tool was first deployed (and when its
use was ended, if applicable).

 

 

CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

 

I am writing to ask you to further clarify your request. This is because
we are not certain that we have understood your request correctly.

 

Therefore, I should be grateful if you would clarify if you require our 10
most recently deployed applications OR our 10 most recently deployed apps
which cover Individual risk assessment, Geospatial hotspot mapping or
Automated biometric analysis?  To be clear, if WMP were to provide
information on our 10 most recently deployed apps, they may not cover any
of those use cases.

 

Please contact me if you need assistance with this.

 

To enable us to proceed with your request I would be grateful if you could
provide the clarification outlined above within 40 working days of this
correspondence. After receiving your reply, your request will be
considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale
of 20 working days, as defined by the Act, subject to the application of
any statutory exemptions. If you choose not to respond then your request
will be closed.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log

 

[1]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

If you need any further information please contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Andrea Mobberley

Freedom of Information

Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

 

[2][WMP request email]

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

   

View all our social network links

 

Our vision: Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in
need

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
2. mailto:[WMP request email]

Dear Andrea,

To clarify, I mean your "10 most recently deployed apps which cover individual risk assessment, geospatial hotspot mapping or
automated biometric analysis."

Thanks very much,

Adam

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Thankyou for your e-mail, you have contacted the Freedom of Information
Department

Valid FOI requests will be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. We will endeavour to provide a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days, as defined by the Act, subject to
the application of any statutory exemptions. Where consideration is being
given to the application of any exemptions the 20 working day timescale
may be extended under the terms of the Act to a period considered
reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In
such cases you will be notified. In all cases we shall attempt to deal
with your request at the earliest opportunity.

What can I not access under FOI?
You will not be able to access information:

  *   about yourself. This is a Subject Access
Request<https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...>
(SAR)
  *   about third parties
  *   about your police record
  *   to access legal aid
  *   for employment purposes
  *   for civil proceedings
  *    for insurance requests
  *    in relation to police certificates for the purpose of emigration,
visas and residency
If you want to make a request on any of the above, visit our main website
to find out how:
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...

or make contact with the `Live Chat` team on the force website who will be
able to assist you further.
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.
If it’s not 999, search WMP Online<https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/>

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

2 Attachments

Dear Dr Harkens

 

 

FOI Request Reference: 1190A/22

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 12/09/2022 and
clarified on 15/09/2022.

 

REQUEST

 

If your organisation has deployed *ten or fewer* tools in total (including
those currently deployed, in development, being piloted or formerly
developed or piloted but never deployed), please skip straight to the
numbered requests below.

 

If your organisation has deployed and/or is developing (or has developed)
*more* than ten tools in total, please respond to the numbered requests
for the ten *most recently* deployed.

 

In particular, I have focused on three types of technology:

 

- Individual risk assessment tools

 

- Geospatial hotspot mapping tools

 

- Automated biometric analysis tools

 

FOR EACH RELEVANT TOOL (UP TO TEN IN TOTAL), CAN YOU PLEASE:

 

1. Supply the *name(s)* of each tool.

 

2. Explain the *reason(s)* why your organisation decided to develop and/or
deploy each tool, including the intended *policy purpose(s)* of the tool
(e.g., to reduce criminal offending by aiming to improve the
identification of potential victims of a criminal offence or to identify
individuals ‘of interest’ to police, using the automated analysis of
digital data).

 

3. Identify the data sources used as ‘inputs’ to the tool and indicate
whether this data has been collected from internal police data sources
(e.g., crime data), external public-sector data sources (e.g., data held
by local authorities), or external data sources made available by
private-sector organisations (e.g., mobile communications data). Please
further indicate whether the tool is updated with new data on a manual
basis, by a human user responsible for inputting data (including how
frequently this usually occurs), or if it is updated on a real-time basis
using an automated live data feed.

 

4. Identify the *output(s)* that each tool produces/produced in order to
serve its intended policy purpose, and what these outputs are taken to
*indicate or signify.* For example: an individual risk assessment tool may
produce a ‘risk classification’ for each assessed person (e.g., ‘high’,
‘medium’ or ‘low risk’). What is it, specifically, that each person is at
‘high risk’ or ‘low risk’ of, in this scenario (e.g., being arrested under
suspicion of having committed a serious offence within the next two
years)?

 

5. Indicate the kind(s) of *decision(s)* each tool supports/supported or
triggers/triggered and about *whom or what*? For example: who to stop and
search? Where to send police patrols? Should an arrested person be
retained in police custody?

 

6. Identify the *intended user(s)* of each tool. For example: does/did the
tool provide information to a front-line officer on patrol, a duty officer
in a custody suite, both, or someone else?

 

7. Please indicate whether in relation to each tool, users receive any
*training* about tool-use, indicating what that training consists (or
consisted) of, who provides this training (including whether this is
in-house or external), and who receives training.

 

8. Indicate the *date(s)* when each tool was first deployed (and when its
use was ended, if applicable).

 

RESPONSE

 

Please find attached our response.

 

Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and
complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been
extracted from a number of data sources used by forces for police
purposes. The detail collected to respond specifically to your request is
subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes
and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when interpreting
those data.

 

The figures provided therefore are our best interpretation of relevance of
data to your request, but you should be aware that the collation of
figures for ad hoc requests may have limitations and this should be taken
into account when those data are used.

 

If you decide to write an article / use the enclosed data we would ask you
to take into consideration the factors highlighted in this document so as
to not mislead members of the public or official bodies, or misrepresent
the relevance of the whole or any part of this disclosed material.

 

As recommended as good practice by the Information Commissioner’s Office a
version of this response may be published on the West Midlands Police
website.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log

 

[1]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[2]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to
contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Andrea Mobberley

Freedom of Information

Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

 

[3][WMP request email]

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

   

View all our social network links

 

Our vision: Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in
need

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
2. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...
3. mailto:[WMP request email]