Prolific & other priority offenders

Home Office Good Practice Seminars

Prolific & other priority offenders seminar

Workshops - 1 December

Workshop 2

Information Sharing

(Kevin Crowley, National Treatment Agency)

Kevin gave a presentation, which discussed issues around sharing of information and legislation appearing to prevent such sharing. In summary, Kevin emphasised that there were no barriers to sharing information in order to prevent crime, but that information should be proportional.

Kevin is currently working with government departments to clarify this area and hopes that there will be clear guidelines issued to assist in data-sharing.

The workshop was run twice and, following the presentation, delegates were split into smaller groups discussing the following issues:

What are the anxieties/barriers to Information Sharing?

Fear of legislation, e.g. Human Rights Article 8/ Understanding complex legislation
Organisational culture & Ideological tensions
Intelligence vs. information
Formalisation vs. informal "sharing"
Embryonic CDRPs
Morals vs. law
Forcing information sharing via service level agreements
Relationships and personal safety
Multi-agency Public Protection Arrangements already deal with serious offenders and have guidelines – PPOs will deal with less serious offenders ("thieves and burglars") – what do we do?
Breach = withdrawal of treatment
Confusion – fear – understanding
Individuals – trust – morals
Threat – strategic perspectives
Ability to share
Operational drivers
"Betrayal" of relationship with client
Training issue within all agencies – filed workers need the same understanding as national/regional/county level
Not enough "plugged in gatekeepers" within relevant organisations
Different agency lawyers giving conflicting information – need case law
No capacity/resources within PCT to share – resources affected by cost of bringing in new processes
PCTs are not primary data holders – GPs are
Personality can stop process
Cultural barriers where one organisation fails to understand the culture of another
Personal liability/accountability for info sharing errors
Understanding the benefit to your organisation of sharing specific information
Mixed role/responsibility with practitioners and their clients
Location
Trust – relationships – relevant contacts
IT systems
Time constraints
Stereotyping
Training (law)
Whose agenda?
Dissemination of information
Lack of understanding at senior level & ground level agencies/staff not willing to share – fear of "destabilising system"
Fear of court/"the sack"/ taking responsibility
Operational conflicts
Entrenched beliefs
People are insecure and look outward/upward for answers
Trust – selling it – "quid pro quo"
Training in protocols throughout legislation
Not part of core aims
Different work ethics
Reluctant to specify individuals

Which stakeholders and at what level?

Job Centre Plus ("Prison 2 Work") – local and regional
Treatment providers – statutory and non-statutory
Probation Service culture
Health, voluntary sector, GPs and consultants, mental health trusts – at all levels
Mental Health Trust refuse to share – Caldicott Guardians
Youth Workers and DIP staff
Health – Data Protection officers, NHS Trusts, Community Mental Health Teams
Housing Associations (32 in delegate's area)
Health, Connexions, Youth Service holding up process at all levels

Are there information sharing protocols in place, and are they adequate?

Informal protocols are inadequate for PPOs
Need to revise protocols that do exist
Countywide protocol - soon out of date/never current & not all signed up – operationally always playing "catch up" for new initiatives, e.g. ASBOs
Protocols in place - not sure of adequacy, training and caution - operationally over complex and protective
No "Health ready" protocol
Most have draft protocols, except for Health
"At risk" = not criminal yet :- info sharing not appropriate under present interpretation/protocol
Do we need separate protocols for Prevent & Deter?
Two points of view on effectiveness of protocols - don't work if not managed v's they are valuable and work in some places.
Need accurate recording of why info is requested, fed via gatekeepers not practitioners – time factor problematic via this method
Countywide, local agreements and team prtocols in place – not operational
"Who's protocol" – generic sign-up but not cascaded

Identify potential solutions

Building partnership/relationship/trust takes time – 2-3 years – protocols follow
Build/use regional strategic structures
Establish health lead/champion for crime & disorder issues
Shared vision/priorities
Case law
Guidance from the Home Office
Risk sharing database, shared between agencies "traffic lighting" – may not help in casework terms
Protocols need to be practical in operational terms – include "gatekeepers"
Public health leads in Health – PCTs and providers
Lead commissioners – DAATs/Joint Commissioning Group structures
Strategic Health Authority to take ownership (London) establishing regional/sub-regional structures – health reps/NTA/GOs + sell it locally
Use existing systems that are working, e.g. Richmond to use the ASB panels
Joint training
Develop shared aims "ticking all agencies' boxes"
Discussing confidentiality/informed consent and obtaining signed agreement in all meetings with clients and between agencies
Be honest and "up front" with clients
Home Office Information Sharing model protocol
Simplified aide memoire of information sharing protocols for practitioners
Demystifying terms, e.g. police intelligence, via team meetings/presentations
Engage voluntary sector as commissioned agents

NB: There is little case law in this field. The high profile cases we have seen involve the absence of information sharing with often devastating results (e.g. Bichard Enquiry and Victoria Climbie Enquiry)

Download: PPO Information Sharing: the legal situation (PowerPoint presentation) 74 Kb

Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area