Close-up of a finger inserting a white USB drive labeled 'Data' into a USB port against a cloudy blue sky background

Data and dignity: balancing transparency and trust in public services

In local government, effective data sharing isn’t just about technology or compliance—it’s about building trust with communities whilst delivering better services to those who need them most. Through the Citizen-Led Security Standards project, we are working with Noisy Cricket, the University of Manchester and the GMCA to explore how ethical data sharing can transform service delivery. Using the Changing Futures Programme as our case study, we’re examining how local authorities and their delivery partners collect and share data, and what this means for both organisations and the people they serve.

Why data sharing matters in local government

Local authorities hold large amounts of personal information that, when shared appropriately, can significantly improve service delivery and outcomes for residents. However, the process of consent and sharing of information can be jarring for individuals accessing services. Someone might engage with a service thinking they’re starting fresh, only to discover that information about their past interactions with other services is already known. This lack of transparency about what information is held and shared, and why it can create barriers to trust and engagement.

The front line reality

For VCSE organisations delivering the Changing Futures Programme, data sharing presents unique challenges. Working directly with clients requires a nuanced, empathetic and responsive approach that standard protocols for information sharing might not accommodate. Practice varies significantly:

  • Between local authorities with different systems and processes
  • Across VCSE organisations with distinct approaches
  • Among individual practitioners adapting to client needs
  • From client to client, based on individual circumstances and comfort levels

This variation, while necessary for person-centred support, makes it challenging to build a comprehensive picture of data sharing and consent practices. What works for one person might be inappropriate for another, and practitioners must constantly balance procedural requirements with individual needs.

Mapping the data journey

To understand these complexities, Open Data Manchester is conducting detailed mapping of data flows within the Changing Futures Programme. Through workshops and discussions with council staff and delivery partners, we are building visual representations of:

  • Who is involved in data collection and sharing
  • What types of data move through the system
  • Where data is stored
  • How information flows between different organisations
  • When and why data sharing occurs

These visual data flow maps are helping to reveal the complexity of information sharing in practice. The iterative process of creating and refining these maps with stakeholder feedback ensures accuracy and highlights areas for improvement.

We hope that understanding these data flows will help to inform a more ethical and effective approach to data and information sharing that:

  1. Prioritises clear, timely communication about information sharing
  2. Supports practitioners in making informed decisions
  3. Maintains flexibility for individual circumstances
  4. Ensures regular review and improvement of practices

Balancing transparency with trust

The insights gained from mapping the Changing Futures Programme’s data sharing practices offer a foundation for improving how we communicate about data. Yet this raises important questions about transparency itself: how do we simplify complex data flows without losing crucial detail? What level of information helps build trust, and at what point does transparency become overwhelming?

We must consider that showing someone the full extent of data sharing—every organisation that has access to their information, every point where their data moves—might actually discourage engagement with vital services. Yet insufficient transparency also risks perpetuating feelings of distrust.

We hope the data flow mapping is a first step toward finding this balance. By understanding the complete picture, we can work toward presenting information in ways that build trust while supporting engagement. The goal isn’t just to document where data goes, but to use this understanding to create more human-centred approaches to data sharing.

Ultimately, we must remain focused on the person at the centre of these systems. Effective data sharing isn’t just about the systems themselves—it’s about supporting people in accessing the help they need, with dignity and understanding.