Mike Evans' report has elicited a flood of emails, some agreeing with him and some abusing him. Mike, as always, takes these things in his stride. Jason Atkinson has now put all this into perspective in his articulate, balanced and intelligent article.
In Perspective - Civil Investigation & American Influence
By Jason Atkinson - Quest Assessing & Investigations
I have read with amusement the ongoing banter regarding the original comments from Mike Evans in his article on this site titled: 'The Big Players in Investigation in Australia', and the consequent comments by Shannon Carney and A Jonhstone. Whilst entertaining and informative, in the context of a juxtaposition of who the movers and shakers are in the industry, and the involvement of large American investigation players, we seem to have moved away from core purpose of this forum: the promotion of civil investigation as a profession and an intellectual and investigation resource repository that we can all participate and benefit from. Although it is interesting to contemplate the cultural idiosyncrasies of national pride, flag waving and more specifically how Australian investigation companies present themselves having merged with, or been acquired by American companies - some clarification of the issues is required.
The first question to ask is; 'Who am I to comment, and why should my opinion be considered with any tangible seriousness? Here is my answer: I am now into my second graduate program in investigation having completed a graduate program in fraud investigation through CSU. In the process of undertaking hours and hours of research for the various assessments specifically aimed at civil investigation, as distinct from law enforcement/criminal investigation, much information was sourced and considered from the US, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand. This combined with 17 years of crash and civil investigation experience, I would hope provides a fundamental foundation for reasonably informed comment.
Let me break it down this way:
Mike Evans & The Australian Security Academy:
Mike Evans is undoubtedly recognised as the leader in civil investigation training in Australia. His success in Australia and South East Asia is testament to this assertion. Mike recognised early that the 'Asset Security Training Package' and for the purposes of this paper - Certificate 3 in Investigative Services, was for the most part focused on statutory enforcement (non policing) and/or regulatory/compliance functions. Mike has ensured that this mandatory licensing qualification related directly to civil investigation processes - workers' compensation investigation, motor vehicle accident and CTP claims investigation as an example. Moreover, Mike has also ensured that reactive approaches to civil investigation has been linked to proactive risk management strategies, increasingly and paramount to insurance company fraud risk detection policies; and wider corporate governance processes, was recognised and related to civil investigation through his training programs. This is what is required if a civil investigator is to truly understand his/her role in the wider conduct of insurance fraud and civil liability investigation.
That said; Mike Evans is one of very few trainers, who can actually lay claim to training civil investigators to a level with which they can actually enter the industry with the pre - requisite skills and knowledge to undertake civil investigations competently. In comparison to a TAFE graduate, the extent and level of training required on the job is significantly reduced. Certificate 3 in Investigative Services goes no where near to providing a novice civil investigator with what she/he truly needs to undertake liability/fraud investigations, and Mike Evans has structured the Certificate 3 competencies accordingly, hence reducing the need to train from complete scratch. Many civil investigation companies in Australia have benefited from Mike Evans' commitment and approach to the civil investigation industry and training of potential operatives.
YES, I am a big supporter of Mike Evans - because he is genuinely committed and concerned with the training and development of civil investigators. And, of course, Mike knows the industry, he is involved in all aspects of the industry, he knows the problems, he understands the situation, he knows the companies, their people and many of those idiosyncrasies applicable to the many and varied aspects of this industry. Therefore, his comments are informed and well advised. Based on this - Mike's comment:
…"I have noted a big American Investigation Company is trying to establish itself in Queensland, Mike Evans' unwanted advice to them: Buy Mpol, Verifact, LKA or Milnes and do what they are doing if you want to get a foothold in Queensland. Be warned Barringtons could buy you three times, and still have change left over. Also lose the photographs of your management team in front of the stars and stripes, it does not work East of Hawaii and it just pisses people off"
He's right. And, put it into the context it was said: As a marketing strategy, as a promotion exercise, it need not be a fan fare - companies do not need the 'Stars & Stripes' with photographs of the management team in front. It is the quality of the investigation product and the level of client service that will promote the company. It is not as if we are participating in a US Presidential Election. I do not see Mike's comments as being an outright dig upon the 'Good Ol US of A', a criticism of US patriotism or pride, or any similar like connotations. Mike's comment is apt to the Australian investigation industry - not intended as a proverbial 'yank bash'
Therefore, the comments made by Shannon Carney, appear to have been made on the assumption that Mike was having an overt crack at US influence/involvement in the civil investigation industry in Australia. If Mike was in fact having a crack at the US influence, then Shannon's comments would be in part pertinent. This then leads me to he next issue - love them or hate them, the American's are at the forefront of investigative practice in a civil context, and more specifically, the detection, prevention and mitigation of insurance fraud. Looking beyond their overt display's of pride and patriotism, brashness, boldness, outward notion of big, better, best - we can take on many positives of 'some' American influence.
American Experience & Influence:
As written above - a primary focus of this site is the promotion of civil investigation/investigation generally through a networking process, and the exchange of ideas and knowledge as an electronic resource repository. And, the visionary that Mr. Hessenthaler is, he should be congratulated and commended for this site. Now - with due regard to the exchanging of ideas and knowledge - we can learn a lot from the US relating to combating the scourge of insurance fraud in Australia.
Arguably, the US is about 5 to 10 years in front of Australia in dealing with insurance fraud. Unlike Australia - the US has legislated widely to ensure that insurance fraud is a crime, as distinct from the various theft, dishonesty and deception offences codified into the various criminal statutes across states and territories in Australia. The US legislation has made it mandatory for US Insurers to have in place dedicated Special Investigation Units, solely dedicated to the task of tackling insurance fraud. These units are strongly supported by legislative powers for investigators to undertake their investigations from a law enforcement platform, have access to current intelligence on organized insurance crime, combined with solid data through data aggregation and data mining, fraud risk management practices, access to documents and records, naming and shaming campaigns and proactive education strategies, forming an holistic and powerful investigation process from both a proactive and reactive perspective.
Entities in the US such as the 'National Insurance Fraud Crime Bureau', the 'Coalition Against Insurance Fraud' and the many state based organisations in the US like the Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts and the Texas Insurance Fraud Bureau serve to continually deal with the crime of insurance fraud at all levels. For the most part, this simply does not exist in Australia. I do not intend here to deal extensively with the idiosyncrasies of insurance fraud in Australia; however, perusal of the following provides a more than sound comparison of the differences between Australia and the US in dealing with this crime, which significantly affects both insurers and innocent policy holders:
- Fraud Investigation: A Claims Handlers Guide.
- Tackling Insurance Fraud - Law & Practice.
- Insurance Fraud White Paper.
- Insurance Fraud - Hidden Costs.
- Guide on Insurance Fraud.
- Trends and Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice: Insurance Fraud.
At the heart of dealing with and combating insurance fraud in the US is the integral involvement of investigation companies, who either provide a SIU function to US underwriters, or retain a SIU section in house, specifically tasked to investigate all types of insurance fraud - not just motor vehicle and home/contents claims, but casualty fraud, workers' compensation fraud (Claimant, Provider and Premium Fraud), as distinct from liability assessing or loss assessing generally. Enter a company like MJM Inc, who we all know have entered Australia with the former Milne & Associates.
I am in no way promoting MJM, or any Australian based investigation company. What I am saying is: We can draw upon the skills and knowledge of US Investigation Companies in dealing with and combating insurance fraud in this country. So, let us not close our eyes and form the narrow view; that because our sometimes brash cousins, who might spell the odd word differently, who might wave the stars and stripes in the wrong places and sing their own praises to the highest levels; that we should be averse to any American influence; rather, we need to use their knowledge and skill given their experience and where possible, in all the circumstances, apply their knowledge and skill to the Australian experience, to effectively combat insurance fraud, as opposed to the to the wrong message of passing the cost of insurance fraud on to innocent policy holders, by way of increased premiums; that insurance fraud is in part an acceptable crime.
God Bless Australia and the US.