interest and secure the acquired information from unauthorised access.39 This would allow for the identification of areas in which data are lacking as well as the indication of specific categories of information needed for policy-makers and assign data collection tasks to the most appropriate agencies. Data sharing in the area of children’s rights can be further facilitated by maintaining national focal points that have been successfully established for the purpose of the Global Study in as many as 50 States. These can coordinate and distribute cross-sectional data collection tasks to the relevant agencies. The need for ensuring effective intersectional cooperation has been recently addressed by the CRC-Committee, in particular data-sharing between child protection services, the police and the justice system.40 3.2 Allocation of Adequate Resources Ensuring long-term sustainability of data collection requires provision of adequate financial resources. These should be utilised for the development of infrastructure, in particular ICT infrastructure (e.g. computer systems and software). Although existing technical capacities allow for efficient merging of large datasets to inform policy-making, low level of data digitalisation as well as low interoperability of public data remain serious obstacles in utilising their full potential.41 Adequate resources should also be allocated for capacity building among professionals who are data collectors and data users (see Figure 3). Capacity building policies should comprehensively address various data-related activities, in particular designing methodologies of data collection (e.g. designing forms and questionnaires), obtaining data from children (e.g. psychological skills) as well as development of analytical and writing skills among professionals responsible for drafting policy papers. Furthermore, adequate resources should be allocated for building competencies for intersectional statistical tasks such as large-scale survey on children deprived of liberty in various settings. 39 The establishment of an accreditation system for the purpose of sharing data between public institutions is among the proposals for the new Data Sharing and Release Bill in Australia. See: Australian Government (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), ‘New Australian Government Data Sharing and Release Legislation. Issues Paper for Consultation’, 4 July 2018, p. 8. Available at https://www. pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/australian-government-data-sharing-release-legislation_issues-paper.pdf (accessed 15 September 2019). 40 CRC-Committee, Concluding observations: Serbia, CRC/C/SRB/CO/2-3, 2017, para. 33(f); CRC-Committee, Concluding observations: Malawi, CRC/C/MWI/CO/3-5, 2017, para. 9(b); CRC-Committee, Concluding observations: Bulgaria, CRC/C/BGR/CO/3-5, 2016, para. 28; CRC-Committee, Concluding observations: Nauru, CRC/C/NRU/CO/1, 2016, para. 31(d). 41 Administrative data are characterised as having a relatively large number of observations (cases), but a limited number of variables that describe factors influencing certain phenomena. This makes administrative records a useful auxiliary source, but insufficient to be the main source of knowledge for policy-makers. See: Roxanne Connelly et al. (2016), op. cit. 53