Effective Practices for Interagency Data Sharing: Insights from Collaborative Research in a Regional Intervention

Abstract

Data sharing adds considerable value to interagency programs that seek to tackle complex social problems. Yet data sharing is not easily enacted either technically or as a governance practice, especially considering the multiple forms of risk involved. This article presents insights from a successful data sharing project in a major region in east coast Australia involving a federally funded research partnership between two universities and a number of human services agencies. The Spatial Data Analysis Project sought to establish a community of practice for devising data sharing protocols and embedding data sharing into agency practices. Close dialogue between the project partners and mobilizing the authority of extant regulatory and legal frameworks proved effective in confronting risks and barriers. The article reveals effective practices for data sharing and derives lessons for other policy and governance contexts. AbstractData sharing adds considerable value to interagency programs which seek to tackle complex social problems. Yet data sharing is not easily enacted either technically or as a governance practice, especially considering the multiple forms of risk involved. This paper presents insights from a successful data sharing project in a major region in east coast Australia involving a federally funded research partnership between two universities and a number of human services agencies. The Spatial Data Analysis Project sought to establish a community of practice so as to devise data sharing protocols and, simultaneously, to begin embedding data sharing into agency practices. Close dialogue between the project partners, and mobilising the authority of extant regulatory and legal frameworks, proved effective in confronting longstanding risks and barriers. The paper reveals effective practices for data sharing and derives lessons for other policy and governance contexts.

“Data stickiness” in interagency government data sharing: a case study

“…However, IDS is highly problematic and is hindered by barriers, which include organizational and management (e.g. Crosby and Bryson, 2005;McGuirk et al, 2015;Gil-Garcia and Sayogo, 2016;Tomusange et al, 2017), technical (e.g. Dawes, 1996;Zhang and Dawes, 2006;Gil-Garcia and Burke, 2010;Gil-Garcia and Sayogo, 2016;Zhou et al, 2020), relational (e.g.…”

Exploring barriers and solutions in advancing cross-centre population data science

“…The need for practical solutions such as a search portal across repositories, consistent standards, policies and review processes, and the ability to track dataset reuse were proposed over a decade ago and remain largely unaddressed [18]. Data sharing has been described as a 'complex messy and non-linear process' and a 'jigsaw of conflict and cooperation', such that protocols and procedures alone are unlikely to mitigate the risks [19]. Academic institutional factors are seen as hindering data sharing including the culture relating to publication as a yardstick of success.…”

“…This in itself needs effort to maintain direction since resistance and subversion may occur if practices are changed which result in bureaucratic frustration and compromise rather than creating positive change for analysts and researchers. There is an identified need for a framework that builds familiarity, trust, mutual purpose and dependency across a data sharing community of practice that allows risks to be understood and mitigated [19]. Whilst technical challenges are not trivial and solutions are essential, a key message in the literature is that cultural factors are likely to be harder to solve [18,21].…”

Theorising the role of community practitioners supporting young men with mild to borderline intellectual functioning in re-entry

“…A recent Australian study also reinforces that a significant barrier to interagency work to support practitioners in the field is lack of data sharing, impeding any efforts to develop cross-agency communities of practice (McGuirk et al, 2015). The Australian study reinforced that there are valid concerns about the risks of inter-agency information sharing, not the least of which include misuse or unintended use of sensitive information and potential for non-compliance with privacy and confidentiality regulations.…”

“…A capabilities-based study which begins to identify capabilities and functionings for persons with mental illness in recovery (Lewis, 2012) In the absence of a strong body of empirically-tested social inclusion functionings which could be considered relevant to the present study, a list of functionings has been assembled from across the range of the empirical studies selected for the literature review. determination (Scourfield, 2015 andWorral &Mawby, 2014); providing holistic and longterm support to clients (Deering, 2012, and Schlager , 2008; engaging with and being part of a therapeutic community for clients (Kinner et al, 2016); having facility for cross-agency sharing of information, knowledge and skills (McGuirk et al (2015); creating affiliative and restorative opportunities for clients (Eck et al, 2016); and "being in the space" with clients in community (Ford and Lynch, 2014).…”