The paper examined barriers of criminal information sharing between law enforcement agencies and their effect in crimes management in Nairobi County, Kenya, using data from an MA Thesis. This study was guided by four objectives; to examine the types of criminal information that is shared among law enforcement agencies; to assess the individual, organizational and technological barriers that hinders sharing of criminal information among law enforcement agencies in Nairobi County, Kenya. This study was guided by Social Exchange Theory as propounded by Homans in (1958). This study adopted a qualitative study design and non-probabilistic sample design paradigms. The main method of data collection was the interview. Interview schedule and key informants guide were used to collect data. A sample comprised of 47 law enforcement officers purposively selected from Directorate of criminal Investigation (DCI) Operation wing and the Kenya Police Service Headquarters operation wing. In addition, 10 Key informants were also purposively selected and interviewed to inform the study. Both individual barriers, organizational and technological barriers affected criminal information sharing among law enforcement agencies. Major individual barrier was competition for credit between the agencies in achieving positive outcomes which was perceived to have a backlash on security operations. Other individual barriers included the deeply entrenched culture of secrecy and the need-to-know rather than the need to share policy. Major organizational barriers include Mistrust of other organizations (89.1%), Organizational culture such as culture of secrecy (83.2%). Major technological barriers included both intra and inter-information technological gaps exacerbated by wanting levels of information technology skills. The barriers were perceived to cause 'linkage blindness,' where the information available in one agency is not available with other law enforcement agencies affecting remarkable achievement of outcomes. As a policy measure, the study recommended speedy removal of criminal information barriers at all levels and fast mitigation on both intra and inter-organizational information technological skill gaps. The deeply entrenched culture of secrecy and the need-to-know rather than the need to share information policy should further be re-visited and dealt with. Finally, there is an urgent need for National-wide Criminal Information Management System with certain rights for all law enforcement agencies. The use of a database will reduce the technological barrier since criminal information will be made accessible to all the agencies
The United States Department of Justice, 2009.
“United States Declaration of Independence”. Inalienable Universal Human Rights, July 4, 1776.
Kenya, “The constitution”. Nairobi: Government Printer, 2010.
Gottschalk, P. & Dean, G., “Stages of knowledge management systems in policing financial crime”. International Journal of Law Crime and Justice, 38, 94-108, 2010.
Ratcliffe, J. H., “Intelligence-led policing”. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 248, 1-6, 2012.
Best Jr's 9/11 terrorist attacks
Government of Canada, 2010
US Office of Homeland Security (2007)
Lake, D. A & Morgan, P.M eds, “Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World”. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
Adams, R., Rohe, W.M., & Arcury, T.A., “Implementing community-oriented policing: Organizational change and street officer attitudes”. Crime and Delinquency, 48, 399- 430, 2002.
Baylis, Wirtz and Gray (2013)
The New Times, 2015
Lake and Morgan (1993: 8),
NCIC database, US Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington D.C., 2000.
Bittner, E., “The functions of the Police in Modern Society”. Chevy Chase, Maryland: National Institute of Mental Health, 1970.
Van Maanen, J., Police Socialization: A longitudinal Examination of Job Attitudes in an urban Police Department Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 207-228, 1975.
Chan, J., “The technological game: How information technology is transforming police practice”. Criminal Justice, 1(2): 139-159, 2001.
Koper, C., Lum, C. & Willis, J., “Optimizing the use of Technology in Policing: Results and implications from a multi-site study of the social, organizational, and behavioural aspects of implementing police technologies”. Policing, 8(2): 212-221, 2014.
Manning, P.K., “Information technologies and the police”. Crime and Justice, 15, 349-398, 1992.
Sheptycki, J., “High Policing in the Security Control Society”. A Journal of Policy and Practice, Volume 1, Issue 1, 70–79, 2007.
Haggerty, Kevin D., &Richard V. Ericson, “The Surveillant Assemblage”. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4): 605–622, 2000.
Marenin, O., “Building a global police studies community”. Police Quarterly, 8, 99-136, 2005.
Jones, T. & Newburn, T., “Policy convergence, politics and comparative penal reform: Sex offender notification schemes in the USA and UK”. Punishment and Society, 15(5): 439-467, 2013.
Haberfeld, M., McDonald, W. & Hassell, A. “International Cooperation in Policing: a partial answer to the query?”. In M. Haberfeld & M. Cerrah (Eds), Comparative Policing, the struggle for democratization. London: Sage, 341-371, 2008.
Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000
Sorensen, C & Pica, D, “Tales from the police: Rhythms of interaction with mobile technologies”. Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK, 2005.
Jackson, D. L., “Revisiting sample size and the number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis”. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 128–141, 2003.
Orodho, A. J. & Kombo, D.K., Research Methods: Nairobi: Kenyatta University, 2002.
Mugenda, M. O. & Mugenda, G.A., “Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches”. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies, 2003.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.