PROGRAMME
INFORMATION SHARING
Forward
Accurate and effective information sharing is important in ensuring that the Drug
Interventions Programme (DIP) and the Prolific and other Priority Offender
Programmes (PPO) are as successful as possible. It is also probably the subject of
more enquiries and discussion than any other item.
In response to queries from colleagues from many different agencies in the field we
have brought together a briefing note on the general approach to information sharing
and the issues it raises. It is not intended as the definitive guide – it would be a brave
individual who claimed to have done that. But I hope it will be helpful.
When looking at some of the challenges presented by information sharing and the
complex legislative framework it is surrounded by, it is important to consider the
whole range of possible statutory provisions that are available. This will enhance
flexibility and improve the effectiveness of looking purely at the individual provisions.
The more we are able to use the whole range of statutory provisions available, the
greater our partnership working will be and the wider reaching our results will be.
PETER WHEELHOUSE.
For further guidance on information sharing please see the links below. These cover
legislation and guidance relevant to this subject.
Department of Constitutional Affairs Guidance. ‘Public Sector Data Sharing: Guidance on the
Law, November 2003’
http://www.foi.gov.uk/sharing/toolkit/lawguide.htm
High Level Summary
The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) and the Prolific and other Priority Offender
(PPO) Programme are two of the Government’s most successful offender
management approaches – intervening with offenders before, during and after
contact with the criminal justice system. Part of the success of these programmes is
the focus they place on the collective responsibility of local partnerships to manage
those who offend the most or those whose offending causes most damage to their
local communities.
The legislative framework around information sharing is complex and there is a range
of existing guidance available. This can make it difficult for local agencies to navigate
a way through this and make decisions about what information it is appropriate and
lawful to share.
It is important to consider the whole range of possible statutory provisions that are
available in relation to information sharing, depending on the different circumstances
presented. This will enhance flexibility and improve the effectiveness by looking
beyond the individual provisions.
This short briefing provides a high level summary of the ethos of information sharing
and covers three areas where understanding the parameters of information sharing
are vital:
• Information sharing has an important role to play in ensuring effective continuity
of care. With the informed consent of the individual, it is possible - and
beneficial to the client - to pass relevant information about their treatment to
other organisations involved in their care. This needs to be done within the
boundaries set by a number of pieces of legislation, and within local
arrangements.
• DIP and PPO interventions can only be effective if those involved with an
individual are able to share information necessary to ensure an appropriate
response to that person’s compliance or failure to comply with what has been
legally required of them.
For continuity of care purposes, however, information may generally only be shared
with informed consent. Exceptions apply in line with existing confidentiality
arrangements and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), for example where the client
may be likely to harm themselves, or another person.
The client must not only be informed about and understand the uses to which the
information will be put, but also the circumstances when confidentiality may be
broken. They must agree to the information being shared for purposes as outlined.
The worker and the individual must sign the consent form attached to the Drug
Interventions Record (DIR) to confirm that this has occurred.
Once consent has been given for such sharing between the specified agencies, and
not subsequently withdrawn by the client, workers can share information contained
on the DIR between those agencies. This means, for example, that not only can a
CJIT worker give information to a CARATS team, but that they may also receive
relevant information in return without further consent being obtained (as both these
agencies are named on the form).
One of the key benefits of alignment is to provide the potential for CJITs to refer the
most non-compliant DIP clients to the PPO programme, and for the programme to
consider their adoption as PPOs, in order to benefit from the more intensive offender
management regime of the PPO programme. In this instance, it may be necessary
to discuss details of the individual which go beyond simply noting that they are on the
CJIT/DIP caseload.
The key to ensuring the legality of such information sharing is that it is processed in a
fair way. In other words, clients should be informed that information about them will
be passed on for these purposes.
The use of aggregated data (where individuals cannot be identified) for intelligence
gathering purposes is well established and largely non-contentious. The use of non
aggregated or personalised data is more complicated and requires a careful
balancing of the individuals rights to confidentiality, enshrined in common law and the
Data Protection Act 1998, against public protection and crime reduction
considerations covered by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Where police or other partners are intending to use non aggregated data for
intelligence gathering the optimum position is to obtain informed consent from the
offender to ensure that they are fully aware and agree to personal information being
used for these purposes.
Where there is no informed consent, the general principle is that non-aggregated
data should only be used in circumstances where there are specific public protection
concerns and then only on a case by case basis. It would not be acceptable to
actively use information such as a positive drug test in isolation to target that
individual whereas the use of personalised data might be justified where police are
acting on specific information to prevent the commission of a serious offence. The
key to ensuring the legality of such information sharing is that it is processed in a fair
way, i.e. clients should be informed that information about them may be passed on
for these purposes.
Treatment providers should not be required to give their reasons for making the
decision to withhold certain information, and should not be coerced into providing
information on any of their clients for which no adequate justification has been
provided or which is not necessary within the law.
Local agreements
Further information
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.