Strengthened Information Exchange for More Efficient Crime Prevention and Combating (NO0024)
Overview
At-a-Glance
Action Plan: Norway Action Plan 2013-2015
Action Plan Cycle: 2013
Status:
Institutions
Lead Institution: Ministry of Justice
Support Institution(s): NA
Policy Areas
Justice, Open Justice, Policing & CorrectionsIRM Review
IRM Report: Norway End-of-Term Report 2014-2015, Norway Second IRM Progress Report 2013-2014
Early Results: Did Not Change
Design i
Verifiable: No
Relevant to OGP Values: No
Ambition (see definition): Low
Implementation i
Description
Norway aims to achieve better coordination of information on combating crime. As
mentioned above, initiatives have already been taken in several arenas, and follow-up of
this work is continuing. No amendments to specific rules are under consideration. The 28
objective is that the police and other actors will give priority to information exchange
and cooperation, and exploit the potential of current legislation.
Pilot projects will be carried out on the cooperation between the police and other actors.
An evaluation will be made of cooperation in bodies for cooperation and coordination
between the police and the local authorities (politiråd) in order to further develop such
bodies as arenas for information exchange
IRM End of Term Status Summary
13. Strengthened information exchange for more efficient crime prevention and combat
Commitment Text:
[…]
COMMITMENT DESCRIPTION
Norway aims to achieve better coordination of information on combating crime. […] initiatives have already been taken in several arenas, and follow-up of this work is continuing. No amendments to specific rules are under consideration. The objective is that the police and other actors will give priority to information exchange and cooperation, and exploit the potential of current legislation.
ACTIVITIES
Pilot projects will be carried out on the cooperation between the police and other actors. An evaluation will be made of cooperation in bodies for cooperation and coordination between the police and the local authorities (politiråd) in order to further develop such bodies as arenas for information exchange.
Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice
Supporting institution(s): None
Start date: 1 January 1, 2014 End date: 31 December, 2015
Editorial note: The text of the commitments was abridged for formatting reasons. For the full text of the commitment, please see http://bit.ly/1QlVIja.
Policy Aim
This commitment aims to improve coordination and thereby efficiency in combatting crime. The IRM researcher speculates that this is related to economic criminal accountability, which has been a prominent issue in the Norwegian media in recent years. A series of investigations in the most popular Norwegian daily newspaper[Note 79: Kjell-Ivar Grondal, “Police Make Major Crackdown on Construction Industry,” Stavanger Aftenblad, May 6, 2015, http://bit.ly/1hgfNXT; Einar Haakaas and Siri Gedde-Dahl, “Warnings Against Undeclared Work and Mafia Development in Vestfold,” Nyheter, August 23, 2014, http://bit.ly/1LomiGj.] have suggested the Norwegian government has poor controls for avoiding corruption in procurement, especially with regard to identifying companies with a record of corruption. The focal point for this commitment was not able to clarify the specific policy aim of the commitment.[Note 80: Kristen Bilberg, (Senior Adviser, Ministry of Justice), interview by Christopher Wilson, phone interview, September 12, 2016.]
Status
Mid-term: Limited
The self-assessment report referenced pilot projects organized in collaboration with the private sector, but the IRM researcher was unable to determine what these projects were, and focal points from the government did not respond to requests for information. The researcher was similarly unable to identify progress on the evaluation mentioned in the commitment.
End-of-term: Limited
Focal points for this commitment noted that no additional activities had taken place and no additional activities were planned, due to limited resources.[Note 81: Ibid. ]
Did it open government?
As currently written, the commitment is of unclear relevance to OGP values as the information exchange is entirely internal to government. The lack of activities further limits the potential impact of the commitment. Therefore, this commitment does not appear to have any significant impact on the quality of open government in Norway.
Carried forward?
This commitment has not been carried forward in the Norwegian government’s third national action plan, which is available on the OGP website.[Note 82: ”Norway’s third action plan Open Government Partnership (OGP),” Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, accessed September 4, 2016, http://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Norway_2016-17_NAP.pdf.]