I am working with Leicestershire Constabulary in the service improvement department looking at ASB and Safeguarding Children and Vulnerable Adults. This work requires the police to work with many partners e.g. Leicestershire County Council, Leicestershire City Council, Charnwood Borough, Health & Social Services, Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Trust, Youth Offending Services and Many More.Working with partners requires information sharing.Information sharing brings a multitude of issues. Just a few examples:Does everyone have the desire to share information?Whats in it for the people sharing information?Who pays for the information sharing?Is it legal?Can we share using the technology in place?Who owns the information we are sharing?Do we trust you to look after our information?Information requires context, does everyone understand the information in the same way?
Here are 2 quotes which help sum up the 2 major driving forces in the police, the first is from MOPI (Managament of Police Information) which I’ll mention a bit later on and the second was from the Cheif Constable shortly after the CSR towards the end of last year.*click*The Police are needing to focus on information sharing for reasons i will explain in the next slide, but equally they need to do this on an extremely tight budget and are having to justify every penny they are spending on projects.
So why is information sharing so important to the Police?There were 2 main catalysts for an increased focus on how the Police deal with information nationally; the first was the child abuse case of Victoria Climbie in 2000 and the second was the Soham murders in 2002. These cases resulted in national inquires to review what had happened and look at recommendations for future changes to ensure this would not be repeated.Lord Lamings’ review of the Climbie case highlighted a greater need for interagency cooperation and information sharing, particularly in regards to Safeguarding Children. The Bichard Inquiry in 2004 focused more on inter Force information sharing as a weakness that needed to be rectified. It was felt that it was failings in being able to access other Forces information which hindered the Polices ability to identify Huntley as a danger.As a result of the Bichard and Laming reviews the NPIA (National Police Improvement Agency) set up the IMPACT program, with the aim to improve intelligence and information sharing amongst police Forces.The impact program has 3 deliverables. *click*the first being the INI a database showing if a force holds data on a suspect another force is dealing with.*click*Second is MOPI which stands for the Management of Police Information a Statutory Code of Practice issued in 2005, which applies to all police information .This has given the police a robust information management strategy which they can now use to acts as a guide to ‘information collection, recording, evaluation and actioning, sharing, reviewing, retention, and disposal’ . *click*The final deliverable of the IMPACT program is the PND (Police National Database) this is designed to be a ‘one stop shop for intelligence’ (Internal Police IMPACT program website), where the Police will be able to access all information stored on a suspect by the Police.The Police have to improve their ability to share information both between Forces and with partner agencies to successful identify and removal all possible threats to the general public. When they fail to do this as in these 2 high profile cases their is media and public outcry. To maintain the publics trust in their ability to keep them safe, the police and partner agencies need to ensure such cases are not repeated.
This is just a quick summary of some of the factors influencing interagency information sharing.I’ve used Dawes framework of Techincal, Organisational and Political dimensions of interagency information sharing as a starting point for analysing influencing factors.I’ve also added in Legal, which could arguably come under Political, but in this case as legal Acts such as the Data Protection Act and Statutes such as the Policing Act are an extremely important influence. Thus I have taken this out to a higher level to help signify the importance of it.I won’t read these all out but just highlight 3 which I feel are very important. First the Law, then we have Culture and then cost saving.
Weiss identified three precursor conditions to interorganizational cooperation.In other cases, a change agent or external crisis is needed to generate or crystallize issues, which in turn mobilises a partnership to form.These factors also highlight the point that org. Are unlikely to share information with out some expectation that they will gain benefits, either by expanding their influence, improving public image or improving productivity.
Dawes‘The information technologies of the 1990s offer a latent capacity to share information across agency and program boundaries, to discover patterns and interactions once hidden in millions of separate paper records, and to make decisions based on more complete data.’This is what we’re aiming for with interagency information sharing, the ability to make decisions on a complete set of available data.BENEFITS Technical Information Infrastructure. ‘sharing encourages thedevelopment of technical standards’ Due to countless problems of interoperability and incompatible processes. This is what information management teams working in partnerships are working towards producing. OrganisationalBroadens Networks - Successful information sharing experiences reinforce these valuable professional relationships BARRIERSOrganisational Self Interest - agencies will generally engage in cooperative action only when there is also some reasonable expectation of achieving selfinterest goals! The relationships organizations develop with others may bring them considerable benefits, but they also create dependencies which exact a price in resources and lost autonomyPoliticalPower of Agency - Agencies resist sharing information because information is a source of power and a symbol of their authority to makeModelIs a feedback loop where by once a problem has been deemed suitable for info sharing expected benefits and risks are identified, people then carry out the info sharing and gain experience in actual risks and benefits this leads to lessons and guidelines which are fed back in from policy and management for the next info sharing situation. After each sharing situation the organisation is adjusted and is better placed to predict what will happen this time around and adjust their approach accordingly.
Hatalas model can be used to categories an organisation into a quadrant of info sharing depending on density, social structure and demographic characteristics.Connected (Open) This is an ideal quadrant for an organization to be situated. Information is exchanged often and freely. A high level of connectivity exists among all organizational work group members. There are social support mechanisms in place that promote information sharing and knowledge management.Interconnected (Dysfunctional) density level is based on the information sharing required for optimal performance. Access to information across groups is promoted and carried out. However, information sharing within a groups is limited. For example, managers are effectively communicating within their own work groups but fail to share information among other managers. The culture is likely to view information as power.Intraconnected (Control), information sharing between groups is minimal. Silos are likely the norm, information may flow freely within groups, it is not shared within the organization. This organizational culture and communication patterns are likely to be task focused. Disconnected (Entropy), the organization as a whole has little connectivity and is drifting apart. Information is not shared freely and is not easily accessible. Organization is not meeting its potential and is likely to face extreme challenges and likely death of the organization.We Tend to find the police in either the interconnected (power) or intraconnected (silos) quadrants. *click* Pan and Scarborough Infrastructure – comprises the hardware and software that enables the contact between participants; Infostructure– the formal rules governing exchanges and sense making between the participants; Infoculture– is the background knowledge embedded in social relations and work group process.*click*Richardsons’ Outcomes of information sharing: ideal model, information is shared appropriately and when there is good cause but is equally withheld when there is good cause. over-open model, information is withheld appropriately and when there is good cause information is shared without good cause or inappropriately. over-cautious model, information is shared appropriately and with good cause but information is withheld without good cause or inappropriately. chaotic model, information is shared inappropriately or without good cause and is also withheld inappropriately or without good cause. Here the public sector is usually found in the over cautious model.
The previous slides have given you a little bit of background about the situation Leicestershire Constabulary and its partner agencies are in and why they are trying to improve their ability to share information. In a very simplified view they are trying to provide a better service to their customers and are trying to reduce the chances of tragedies such as the Soham murders happening again.So here are some aims and rambling thoughts that I am currently having with regards to my work.Fairly simple before it can be made better it needs to be understood.For this I am starting with the basis of barriers to interagency information sharing Dawes gives as Technical, Political and Organisational.After identifying the barriers need to find some way to overcome them as it won’t be too helpful to the partner agencies knowing what their barriers are.I’m still researching frameworks which are relevant and have found some which I’ll go through quickly on the next slide.The cloud in the private sector is being utilised widely. Could the cloud be used here, will it help or hinder what the agencies are trying to do? Removal of interoperability issues, reduced concept of it being owned by one particular agency, but currently being No No’d from the top. Possibly a dangerous situation by simply ruling it out they are likely to need to replace any non-cloud solution in the near future.
Here are just a few references for some of the things I’ve been going over.The first reference is just an example of the problems organisations can face with the legalities of data.Then we have the NPIA Impact program website.The next 4 are just some provide more details about the frameworks I went over in the last slide.And finally Petter Gottschalk and Geoff Dean have carried out a lot of research with the police mainly in Australian and Norway in different areas in particular knowledge management, so worth a look if your interested.
As I am not here today if you do have any questions you would like to ask feel free to email me or ask me next time you see me around.
Exploring interagency information_sharing_final
Exploring Interagency Information Sharing <br />Ashley Cairns (1st Year PHd)<br />
BackgroundQuotes<br />Importance of Information<br />Need to Cost Cut<br />‘For the police service to be intelligence led in protecting the public, preventing crime and bringing criminals to justice then the effective management of information is vital’<br />MOPI Guidance 2005<br />‘£15m of saving by 2011/12 with a further £19.4m by 2014/15 with a requirement to save the majority in the first two years of the plan’<br />Chief Constables statement 2010<br />
Why is Information Sharing important to the police?<br />Lord Laming <br />Review <br />2003<br />Climbie <br />Murder<br />2000<br />Impact <br />Program<br />2004<br />MOPI<br />2005<br />Soham <br />murders <br />2002<br />Bichard <br />Inquiry <br />2004<br />INI <br />2005<br />PND <br />2012?<br />
Some of the Factors Influencing Interagency Information Sharing<br />
Interorganizational Cooperation (Weiss)<br />Presence of a problem that benefits from a co-operative solution<br />Existence of resources to address the common problem<br />An institutional capacity to carry out a co-operative program.<br />OR An External crisis or change agent<br />
Dawes Interagency Information Benefits and Barriers<br />Dawes’ Theoretical Model of Interagency Information Sharing<br />
Frameworks<br />Hatala’s Information Sharing Model<br />Pan and Scarbroughs’ Sociotechnical Model<br />Richardsons’ Outcomes of Information Sharing<br />
Some Aims and current thoughts of my work ...<br /><ul><li>Understand the current information sharing environment at Leicestershire Constabulary
Identify existing barriers to information sharing and how these can be overcome.
Does a framework exist which can be used for designing future information sharing situations?
Is a cloud solution a viable option?</li></li></ul><li>SomeReferences<br />BBC NEWS, 24/11/2010, , Council fined £100,000 after child sex abuse fax error. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11823671 [30/11, 2010]. <br />IMPACT program - http://www.npia.police.uk/en/15087.htm<br />WEISS, J.A, 1987. Pathways to cooperation among public agencies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(1), pp 94-117.<br />DAWES, S.S., 1996b. Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), pp. 377-394.<br />HATALA, J.P. and LUTTA, J., 2009. Managing information sharing within an organizational setting: A social network perspective. - John Wiley & Sons, Inc. <br />PAN, S. and SCARBROUGH, H., 1998. A Socio-Technical View of Knowledge Sharing at Buckman Laboratories. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), pp. 55-66. <br />RICHARDSON, S. and ASTHANA, S., June 2006. Inter-agency Information Sharing in Health and Social Care Services: The Role of Professional Culture. British Journal of Social Work, 36(4), pp. 657-669. <br />LANDSBERGEN JR., D. and WOLKEN JR., G., 2001. Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation of Information Technology. Public administration review, 61(2), pp. 206-220. <br />Peter Gottschalk and Geoff Dean e.g. <br />DEAN, G. and GOTTSCHALK, P., 2007. Knowledge management in policing and law enforcement : foundations, structures, applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. <br />GOTTSCHALK, P., 2010. Policing organized crime : intelligence strategy implementation. Boca Raton, Fla.; London: CRC; Taylor & Francis distributor. <br />GOTTSCHALK, P., 2009. Policing the police : knowledge management in law enforcement. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science. <br />GOTTSCHALK, P., 2006. Knowledge Management Systems in Law Enforcement : Technologies and Techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. <br />