Partnership: an overview of research on partnerships and localism in the UK Contact: Dr Megan O’Neill, University of Dundee and SIPR m.oneill@dundee.ac.uk @drmeganoneill

Outline Background on community safety partnerships in Scotland and E&W Findings from partnership literature Citizens as partners Suggestions for policy and practice

Background to community safety partnerships in UK Also referred to as ‘co-production’: working together to achieve mutually beneficial goals Many different partnerships in public sector – will focus today on community safety Often involves third sector organisations as well as some private sector orgs ‘…the levers of crime and causes of crime lie far from the traditional reach of the criminal justice system’ (Crawford 2002: 31).

Background to community safety partnerships in UK: Scotland Local Government in Scotland Act 2003: mandates community planning (CPPs) Partnerships existed before this, but without basis in statute 1999: Community Safety Partnership guidance from the Scottish Executive 2000: 30 councils had CSPs Most CSPs operate within CPPs Police one of many partners, don’t officially play a lead role Christie Commission (2011) sees integrated services, working towards integrated outcomes and orientated around communities’ needs, as key to public sector reform

Background to community safety partnerships in UK: E&W Crime and Disorder Reduction Act (1998) Mandates partnership working in public sector between key agencies Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (Community Safety Partnerships) formed Partnerships before this Police tend to take a lead role Focus on crime and safety in local areas, although tends to lean towards crime

Background to community safety partnerships in UK: impact of police reform Scotland: SCSN (2013) review found - Shift to enforcement and performance ethos New teams within policing: duplication of efforts and silo thinking High turnover of police personnel Lower ranking officers involved in CSPs

Background to community safety partnerships in UK: impact of police reform England and Wales: Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in 2013 Hold funding for community safety, but: Not official part of their remit Not one of the named partners in legislation Fears this will exacerbate the ‘crime’ focus of CDRPs/CSPs Enhance ‘governing through crime’? (Simon 2007)

Findings from the literature: individual responses Officers involved in partnerships sceptical Not ‘true’ police work Partnership meetings ‘talking shops’ Cultural orientations different Police as action-orientated Partners as discussion and process-orientated Lack of hierarchy/chain of command difficult for police to reconcile

Findings from the literature: organisational responses Skills needed for partnership working seen as ‘soft’, de-valued organisationally Esp in 80s and 90s, high allocation of female officers in partnerships Evidence of police dominance in partnerships, steer for their own ends Police struggle to relinquish traditional mandate in order to be flexible and compromise

Signs of change? Scottish Community Safety Network (SCSN 2012): Good working relationships between CPPs and CSPs Joint working becoming the norm Co-location and strong leadership helps O’Neill and McCarthy (2014) Partnerships more successful with direct relationships between operational members of organisations Mutual willingness to be flexible: hours, resources, informal and ad hoc meetings Co-location also helps Signs that police cultural barriers diminishing

Citizens as partners: challenges of ‘the local’ ‘Local areas’ are a key focus of partnership work in both Scotland and E&W Assumes there are citizens who wish to and are capable of engaging in community safety Assumes identifiable, tangible and (to some extent) cohesive ‘communities’ However: Communities are diverse and fluid Don’t always conform to the official map, online communities Not everyone is interested in engaging in this work For some, public service organisations are a threat ‘Localism’ assumes a coherence that may not exist

Suggestions for policy and practice: for police Continuity of staff/officers involved in partnership work: Build trust over time through direct relationships Allow time for projects to develop Chose staff/officers with appropriate skills Also provide training to these staff/officers Encourage co-location and pooled budgets Joint deployment with partners Expect and reward work in generalised outcomes, not quantifiable targets

Suggestions for policy and practice: for local areas Osborne and Strokosch (2013): three modes of co-production at the operational, strategic and service levels: Consumer: user empowerment Participative: user participation Enhanced: user-led innovation For police: avoid ‘the usual suspects’ who engage (those with high social and cultural capital) Innes (2014) and ‘Community Intelligence-Led Policing’ (CILP) model. Systematic and structured method of face-to-face engagement Representative sample of the local population Carefully designed interview instrument Analyse for low impact/high number problems and high impact/low number problems Targeted interventions with partners