Categorisation of Data
Data will often not be organised according to the same categories by different
agencies. For instance, three main providers of data on offenders and persons suspected
(police, probation and YOT) all use different classifications of ethnicity. When data
on offenders is then compared with basic demographic data taken from the Census, the
categorisation of ethnicity used in the Census is once again likely to be different.
Similar problems occur in relation to age. With different agencies gathering information
on victims, offenders and the general population all using different age range divisions.
For instance, one agency may collect data on age by year, while another collects it
using broader bands such as ‘18 – 25’ or ‘over 65’.
The solution:
develop a proactive approach to data management (Click
here for a link to the section headed A proactive approach to data
management)
agencies identifying ‘information champions' these champions should:
Co-ordinate the sharing of data with other partners by acting as the point
of contact on information sharing issues for their agency.
Regularly review the data gathering practices of their own agencies to identify
potential blockages to information sharing.
using S17 and partnership training to change agency cultures
convince agencies to accept the need to collect data in forms that make sharing
easy; and to gather data on cross-cutting issues such as crime, even though crime
reduction is not one of their primary roles.
software from a number of sources can be used to overcome data quality and manipulation
problems, and to ensure accuracy when plotting data (Click
here for a link to the Contacts page of the Focus
Areas Toolkit). This may allow agencies to retain the way that they collect data.
An alternative approach is to use consultants to perform data cleansing on behalf
of the partnership at specific times.
Back to Data Management
|
