Introduction
The aim of this project was to identify opportunities for improved information sharing across the NZ Government to achieve more effective social outcomes, without compromising fundamental rights of individuals, such as privacy protection and confidentiality. Second, in order to identify potential learning opportunities for improved information sharing from jurisdictions overseas, a document study was conducted of existing strategies and arrangements for cross-governmental information sharing in the UK, Canada and Australia. What are existing strategies and arrangements to enable cross-government information sharing in other jurisdictions.
How and under what circumstances can the exchange of information between governments be improved to achieve more effective social outcomes. In Chapter 6, we report on the information sharing approaches and solutions adopted in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, and briefly point out the main differences compared to the research results in New Zealand. And finally, in Chapter 7, based on the research findings, we present solutions and recommendations for improving information sharing to achieve effective social outcomes in New Zealand.
Available literature on cross-agency collaboration and information
The general rule is that the complexity of the public administration's response must match the complexity of the problem. Another critical factor identified in the research is a trio of roles with specific characteristics: the roles of the so-called "public entrepreneur", "companions" and. They are more likely to be impatient with entrepreneurial ways of working that are independent of the formal position of the individuals involved.
Hudson (2004) and the New Zealand study (Eppel et al. 2008) both emphasize the dynamic nature of the inter-organizational relationship and the policy problems they address. Furthermore, the Act gives the Privacy Commissioner the power to issue codes of practice which become part of the Act. These codes may change the operation of the Act for specific industries, agencies, activities or types of personal information (eg health information).
Research Design
To identify potential case studies, a number of government officials were contacted for information on current inter-agency information sharing initiatives to deal with individuals or families with complex needs. Each of these situations raises different issues in terms of privacy protection and how agencies handle information sharing arrangements. The information sharing arrangements for the Family Safety Teams (13) and Family Violence Response initiatives (11) could potentially also meet this selection criterion.
To understand information sharing practices across New Zealand, we wanted to have a regional spread of case studies as well as a mix of rural, urban and metropolitan areas. To obtain a wide variety of information sharing practices and experiences, we wanted to include case studies on successful interagency information sharing arrangements, as well as instances where information sharing had not been successful. We therefore selected six case studies among three programs that met the variety of case study selection criteria and involved differences in the practice and experience of sharing information.
Case study research findings
This is considered a critical tool as it shows all the agencies that require access to the same set of information. There is a question about financing and IT understanding on the part of the providers. Only information relevant to the task to be performed is shared; not all information known about a person.
The quality of the information is better because there is certainty that action will be taken. Over the duration of the forum, operational managers are more confident that the information they share (including that of a sensitive nature) will do the same. HR/HP information is only available to the members of the HR/HP forum, but only a limited number of people can access or change the information on the system (i.e. nominated administrators).
The staff must be concerned about the accuracy and professionalism of the material kept in the database. Personality issues and parochialism between department departments create barriers to information sharing. This often depends on the agency's mandate and the staff's experience.
The nature of the working relationship determines the level of information sharing that takes place. Information sharing between agencies takes place at different levels depending on the role of the agency. The consequences of the information sharing are made known to the offenders and their families before they consent.
It is difficult if an outside group (eg members of local marae) is not aware of the privacy agreement that the individual has signed as part of the process. There is a requirement that they be informed, but much of the information they provide is irrelevant to the EM Bail application. Criminal court clerks are sometimes difficult to get hold of as they are particularly busy.
Cross case study analysis
In addition, there may be situations where officials and their clients have different interpretations of the agency's information needs and requirements. In the case of the refugee service organizations, for example, we can see that the information needs of government agencies clash with the cultural norms of refugees. Signed consent forms are used by professionals as authorization to share information. All of the case studies we examined have clearly documented processes whereby individual clients consent to certain sets of information being shared between agencies and between professional groups.
In this regard, respondents indicated that a clear distinction is made by officials between information that can be committed to writing as part of the "official record" and information that can be acted upon. For those agencies working under a public safety mandate, where community, professional and personal safety is a key issue in an operational sense, respondents indicated that they see "Principle 11" of the Privacy Act, 1993 as enabling them share critical information with others. professionals and, thereby, as the embodiment of this professional code. For agencies working under a public service mandate, where public security is not overriding in an operational sense and therefore Principle 11 of the Privacy Act, 1993 was not applicable, we observed that the same implicit professional code of security protection applies between officials.
There are clear differences in information sharing practices and procedures between agencies with a public safety mandate, and agencies with a public service mandate Where agencies with a public safety mandate use Principle 11 of the Privacy Act, 1993 to share critical information with other organisations, agencies operating under a public service mandate have no such legal 'backup'. These particular data sets are recognized by all professionals as off limits, and there is no indication from any of the case studies that details of these records are ever subject to sharing. In case studies where an information-sharing protocol is in place, we have observed that professionals treat each other as colleagues, even when someone is employed by another agency – for the purposes of the initiative they are treated as 'honorary employees' ' which has the same information. sets.
In the majority of the case studies, technical solutions for managing information sets across agencies were available but unused. Different government agencies have different interpretations of the Privacy Act, 1993, and how it should be applied. Several respondents reported an operational obstacle in the application of the Privacy Act, 1993, in that different government (and in some cases non-government) agencies had different interpretations of the Act and how it should be applied.
Similarly, respondents involved in one of the PV case studies reported information gaps in both.
International Information Sharing Solutions
Others also point to increasing ways and forms of information sharing between UK government departments, such as the increasing pressure for citizen sharing. From a cross-government information sharing perspective, the Canadian legislative framework currently has four general limitations regarding the collection, use and disclosure of personal information between agencies (Trudel et al. 2007, p.2). In general, solutions for improving the sharing of information about government seem to be sought in the establishment of Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) and information sharing protocols between agencies involved.
As previously mentioned, in Canada, current legislation in the area of personal data protection is a significant obstacle to improving the exchange of information between agencies. This complexity often requires that information sharing needs be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Australian Federal Privacy Act 1988 does not contain specific provision for the sharing of information between public sector agencies.
The purpose of NGISS is to provide (Commonwealth of Australia 2008a, p.5): "a standardized approach to information sharing to support the delivery of public services to the Australian community. Overall, the research findings show that information sharing can and does occur under current legislation. Privacy values are embedded in the way government officials work, and with that, these values shape operational practices of information sharing.
A good example of an information sharing protocol developed in collaboration with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is the information sharing protocol used under the Priority Offenders Initiative. With the observation that the quality of information sharing depends on the quality of the relationships between individual professionals, the chair's facilitating role in intergovernmental initiatives becomes important. These alternative ways of sharing information support an individual's privacy protection and improve information security.
NGOs, information security and the protection of personal information in interagency information sharing initiatives can be greatly improved. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. 2004) ORCON Creep: Information Sharing and the Threat to Government Accountability. Commonwealth of Australia (2008b) Sharing information to assist families and children in the child protection system.
Assessment of case studies against selection criteria
The individuals discussed in this forum are not aware that it works and have no choice in the process. The needs of individuals are often complex and require coordination between different interests. Community safety and security can be adversely affected when communications and coordination are not properly managed.
Other external agencies are involved in managing release arrangements (eg housing, treatment facilities) but are not involved in the forum. Unlike the HR/HP forum model, after the initial identification of potential participants, this initiative is completely voluntary on the part of the target individual, and their family/whanau. Participants typically have complex needs and requests for information sharing include sensitive and personal information.
