Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

The following is a report by Tracey Sisley, Home Office Information Sharing Team, of the syndicate group discussions held at the inaugural Information Sharing Network Conference on 10 September 2001.

<< Back to conference contents

Group A: Exchanging personal information

Project Lion provided an IT structure for the sharing and analysis of data. It also involved the use of a website providing a ‘what works’ database to give partners across London access to common standards and sources of depersonalised information and a web based interactive mapping application. The presentation included a demonstration of what Project Lion could do from accessing live information from the web. Questions arose on the problems of restrictions on using information to or beyond postcode level. The group discussed how Project Lion was not the end of the information sharing process, but its use was in focusing attention on areas to allow the deeper examination of issues.

Group B: Engaging the health sector

The syndicate examined the relationships of crime reduction practitioners with health authorities, and the experiences shared of good operational relationships but low input into crime reduction strategy. It looked at why the health sector should be involved, and touched on the changing nature of the environment (for example with organisational changes and high patient turnover) within the health service and the difficulties in engaging them. There was an obligation for health service to engage with the criminal justice system because of a shared agenda. There were social, cultural and environmental factors in common influencing the agenda, and health and crime reduction practitioners worked in the same communities (for example in prisons, and with those who were subject to alcohol or drugs misuse, and with young offenders with mental health problems etc). There was a clear need to do more to open the way for greater input from the health sector. The group discussed the need to make contact with the health service, and seek out resources and secure funding for information gathering. A key message in discussions was the need to keep up pressure on them to be more closely involved in the work of tackling crime.

Group C: Crime mapping and focus areas

The syndicate examined how crime mapping could be used to support the decision making process. It looked at access to comprehensive, up to date information and how to ensure that it was constantly updated. Protocols were to be defined between agencies to achieve this. The value of data on unreported crime and sources of information on this (for example accident and emergency or fire service data) was highlighted. The use of behavioural information, as on fear of crime, should be considered. The group also examined how to map crimes committed by offenders from outside local areas, by communicating with other areas and looking at hotspots near boundaries.

Group D: Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and information sharing

YOTs needed to be integrated with partner agencies to ensure success, and also to rely on information from a variety of sources. A key issue for YOTs was consent; when this was obtained there was less likelihood of difficulties in accessing information from partner agencies. The group considered the rights to privacy of both victims and offenders, and how consent provided the foundation for action. Early intervention was the key to preventing further offending, but at this stage it was most difficult to justify exchange of information in the public interest. Gaining the consent of young offenders was often the first step in engaging them and responding to their needs. Where consent was not appropriate, legislation had had a positive impact in enabling access to information that would otherwise be denied. The difficulties in engaging the health service in data sharing initiatives was also a feature of the group’s discussion. Again, there was a need to place pressure on health authorities to become more involved with crime reduction agencies. Other issues were the legal status of YOTs and also the benefits of ownership of data sharing initiatives at a senior level. Where chief executives had an active role, these tended to have a better focus and were more robust with better co-ordination across the groups involved.

Group E: Information exchange and crime analysis

The presentation focused on Project Jupiter in the East Midlands. It would provide the crime and disorder partnerships in the East Midlands and South West regions with a data exchange and mapping network. It would enable analysis of local data and use a problem solving approach to resolve local crime issues. The barriers to exchange of information, and challenges in opening up the way to exchange were discussed. The issues of obtaining better quality data, geo-coding data to required levels, security and using limited resources more effectively were explored. Jupiter was a tried and tested model which could be used with systems already in place. It had the flexibility for upgrading technology, addressed data quality issues and provided a secure environment for exchange and analysis. The group discussion touched on the structures within partnerships, the ownership of data, and cultural barriers to exchange, including concerns about confidentiality.

<< Back to conference contents

Date modified: 19 June 2003
Review date: February 2004
Originator: Home Office Information Sharing Te