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

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

3. 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).

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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