Better information sharing, or “share or be damned”?
| Published date | 12 October 2015 |
| Date | 12 October 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-01-2015-0001 |
| Pages | 308-320 |
| Author | Jamie Grace |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection |
Better information sharing, or
“share or be damned”?
Jamie Grace
Jamie Grace is a Senior
Lecturer in Law, at the
Department of Law and
Criminology,
Sheffield Hallam University,
Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore the ramifications of developments in surveillance policies
and technologies for information sharing cultures in a “public protection routine”.
Design/methodology/approach –This conceptual paper uses a mixedtheoretical, legal and policy-based
approachto inform thisexplorationof the ramificationsof developmentsin surveillancepolicies andtechnologies.
Findings –This conceptual paper concludes that developments in surveillancepolicies and technologies as
part of the “public protection routine”will result in a damaging and hasty culture of “share or be damned”
unless a more careful approach to new information sharing approaches is developed. Otherwise, an
increasing bureaucratisation of risk management through surveillance will lead to a disregard for the fine
balance between public protection, procedural rights and privacy.
Originality/value –The originality and value of this conceptual paper is considerable –as some of the case
studies discussed are very recent ones, and ones that represent an acceleration of the problems within the
“public protection routine”which this paper seeks to unpick.
Keywords Human rights,Surveillance, Safeguarding, Legal, Informationsharing, Public protection, MAPPA
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Safeguarding, and the information sharing between professionals and bodies which underpins it,
is crucial for the prevention of harm to the vulnerable. But sometimes it is worth exploring the
“hard cases”, where safeguarding practices might ultimately prove troublesome themselves, on
rarer occasions. As Sue Peckover (2013) has highlighted, a key idea is that sometimes we
respond to risks of harm in an overly bureaucratic or otherwise superficial way because
we cannot find more resources to intervene most effectively and change risky behaviours
presented by (actual potential or alleged) offenders or abusers.
This is a theoretical and policy analysis-based piece that aims to prompt some questions for
readers as to the flourishing culture of information sharing, and the growing body of public policy
in relation to public protection disclosures. The piece also offers up some conclusions on new
“naming and shaming”strategies, as part of the “public protection routine”(Grace, 2013a); which
is the multi-agency work of adult and child safeguarding, in essence. This “direction of travel”
toward increasing the ways in which knowledge about risk (and “risky people”) is spread around
communities is the creation of what I would call a culture of “share or be damned”for
professionals to navigate. In this way, multi-agency information sharing and disclosures of
information to the public (for safeguarding purposes) are an element of what Mike Nash (2010)
has articulated as the “politics of public protection”. This “politics of public protection”can be
summed up as the social, cultural and policy pressures which affect decision making in the public
protection and safeguarding contexts.
Received 31 January 2015
Revised 23 April 2015
13 June 2015
Accepted 14 July 2015
PAGE308
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
VOL. 17 NO. 5 2015, pp. 308-320, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 DOI 10.1108/JAP-01-2015-0001
To continue reading
Request your trial