Challenges

This page provides a summary of the key issues or challenges (related to using data to identify vulnerable people who need support) that were identified by Local Authorities during the Discovery phase of the project; and then identifies the findings, example documents and emerging data standards that may be most valuable in resolving those issues. The aspiration is that this will enable readers to easily navigate the web-pages and more quickly identify key resources, based upon a specific question or issue.

The SAVVI process has been used to provide a structure around the identified key issues; the tabular form also allows the reader to simply “scan” through the list of issues to identify those areas of interest.

Challenges & Issues

Purpose
Information Governance models and approaches were not aligned between partners locally – hence sharing information required significant investment of effort Need political buy-in locally to these types of initiatives, which is not always easy to secure (as local Politicians can be anxious about data-sharing) Partners are not always willing to share data – as there may be differences of opinion from an IG perspective with regards to whether the purpose of the information sharing was covered by existing data sharing legislation or agreements
Find
Matching data sets was very problematic No common matching “key” or address Identifier like UPRN Capturing data with no structured data platform like a CRM to match against a citizen record Not known / clear at the outset whether the data offers insight that applies to the whole household or only an individual person Multi-faceted nature of the matching – across multiple datasets (not just matching one with another, but then matching to 3 or 4 other datasets) Data quality can be variable – in two different ways In terms of whether data is maintained (so when people move address, does the “data” about that individual move with them or does it remain attached to the old address?) Different and sometimes inaccurate capture of the data in the first instance (different spellings, use of formal or shortened first names etc, means it is not always clear if data records are about the same person) No “method” for tracking or “rating” the reliability of data sets (for example, elapsed time since it was reviewed / checked or a rating of the level of scrutiny or verification applied to capturing the data in the first place No “fit for purpose tools”. Tools like excel struggle to cope with dimensional nature of the data
Assess
Contact fatigue – people in some instances were being contacted multiple times with offers of support (by community groups etc) and sometimes felt harassed Do / should different attributes indicate that differing responses might be indicated? How to manage / respond to the fact that some people reach out for help, where others don’t.
Support
There were differences between acute needs (need medicine) and chronic needs (financial vulnerability). For many of the acute needs, the response resolved that need (perhaps temporarily) where for the chronic needs, the response arguably “managed” rather than resolved the issue. Co-ordination of resources was very complex across County, District and third sector resources. The third sector had often already contacted and supported people. It was not always clear which agency had an existing service relationship with each household – and what that relationship consisted of as a contact Even if we find the most vulnerable people in need of support, there is not ever a shared and accurate view about support exists as this changes so frequently and tends to be defined very badly
Report
Tracking progress / outcomes - has no shared system or model, so tracking of what happens is very difficult
Improve
Process step
Identified issues / Challenges
@Information Governance
models and approaches were not aligned between partners locally – hence sharing information required significant investment of effort

Need political buy-in locally to these types of initiatives, which is not always easy to secure (as local Politicians can be anxious about data-sharing)

Partners are not always willing to share data – as there may be differences of opinion from an IG perspective with regards to whether the purpose of the information sharing was covered by existing data sharing legislation or agreements

SAVVI can help
The learning and the findings from SAVVI can support councils in addressing some of these issues through the following:

Examples of practice IG documentation, from ICO and a range of councils (there was something about a suite of documents relating to IG, including definition of riles, DPIA etc (INSERT LINKS)

It is recommended that clear definition of the purpose of the work will probably help accelerate buy-in to data sharing required. The programme has documented the SAVVI catalogue – which offers defined data sets and some example data sharing purposes. Adopting these may help improve the sharing of data between partners locally. The SAVVI catalogue defines the following
Specific data-sets (with recommended related data standards) that provide important vulnerability attributes.
Example SAVVI
@Purposes
– for both homelessness and for prioritsing accessing to services (during COVID-19). These purposes define the purpose and the scope of sharing data and define the specific value of identified data sets (
@Vulnerability Attributes
)
INSERT LINKS

This website offers the opportunity for stakeholders to collaborate and input into defining further good practice documentation. In particular, for example, sharing examples of templates that have been valuable in accurately defining the purpose of the data sharing exercise and specifically defining the added value of each individual data asset to be shared.

DWP have defined the process and the templates that they are advocating to be used for data sharing requests and processing. These are available (INSERT LINK)

Standardising the terminology and definitions of common vulnerability scenarios
Enabling IG outputs to be shared so that others can see how partnerships have succeeded
Defining the steps that partners should go through to establish data sharing - particularly for secondary use of data
Starting a register of definitions of vulnerabilities which can be the ‘purpose’ of data sharing
Promoting the DWP templates and process
Standardising the templates across government.
Exploring the use of the Digital Economy Act for Vulnerability

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.