Violent crime is a huge issue for London. The GLA’s Violence Reduction Unit wanted to use personal data to target resources more effectively. It also needed to ensure that personal data sharing did not further discriminate against already marginalised communities. Getting community buy-in was essential to the success of the public health approach to crime prevention.

We conducted in-depth interviews with young people most ‘at risk’ of being involved in crime - such as people with a history of permanent school exclusion, involvement in illegal drug use, local authority care, living in specific wards, etc. - to understand their attitudes to data sharing.

We found that ‘at risk’ communities understood ‘crime prevention’ as efforts to prevent young people from ever perpetrating crime - not as protecting themselves from becoming victims of crime. If data sharing could achieve this benevolent purpose, they supported it.

They also needed reassurances. People accepted personal data sharing on an case-by-case basis, not mass surveillance. They discussed pitfalls linked to racial profiling, prejudice and bias (including those built into algorithms), human error, data breaches and improper sharing, the retention of obsolete data, and the loss of privacy, among others. They trusted schools and healthcare providers with their personal data, but not the police nor corporations. There were also differences in attitudes based on age, ethnicity and socio-economic group.

Our findings informed the work of the GLA’s Violence Reduction Unit, the Metropolitan Police, schools, NHS, and the ICO. They also helped steer communications about why and how personal data is shared to prevent violent crime in London.