Professional and user information

Agencies like drug agencies and Social Services or Probation can disclose information, but their freedom to do so is limited by the strict confidentiality rules they work to. In practice, the information these agencies hold can be quite limited. However they may be able to disclose general information about areas where supply is prevalent, patterns of pricing, particular groups that are being targeted and so on. Services that regard drug supply as preying upon their client group or users e.g. residents groups and schools, are able to give relevant information about suppliers because they do not have personal or direct contact with these individuals.

In practice, professionals include social workers, housing, probation, drug treatment, schools and a host more. The information they can give is variable and will need strict sifting and grading. Much of it will be low quality, generalised location information. Professionals dealing with issues of confidentiality, as well as not generally asking for information of this sort, will not be told it. This means that they probably hold less data than might be expected, but the possibility of searching this generalised material, especially for hot spotting, should not be discounted.

The main group of treatment workers who can pass on information are arrest referral workers, but simply because they often work on police premises does not mean they can breach their confidentiality rules. However some of their generalised data is likely to be useful.

Arrestee surveys should include specific questions about ease of access to markets.

Housing staff are probably the best source of data on named individuals who operate from specific locations. They are not bound by the same rules of confidentiality and have a role to control anti-social behaviour in their day to day work. They should be routinely consulted.

With all external groups there will be a need for protocols and systems for data exchange. The difficulties of achieving these have been overstated, but they do need work, and commitment from professional bodies who prize confidentiality. The development of these should not be allowed to hinder intelligence and mapping work from those bodies who can co-operate from the beginning.

There is also a place for data from upstream agencies even at BCU level, especially from organisations such as Customs and Excise, and also from the immigration service. This will take the form of enquiry based data rather than routine sampling, but it is useful for network analyses.

Obtaining data from users is essential. CHIS’s may be users; but above and beyond them, there needs to be some systematised attempt to gather data from users, either via agencies dealing with them, arrest referral workers, or by externally run focus groups. Consulting with them is useful for evaluation of impact too.