MULTI-AGENCY WORKING IN POLICING

Multi-agency working in Policing



Multi-agency working in Policing

A review of historical accounts of the emergence of the modern criminal justice system from the late-eighteenth century reveals the striking number of times that innovations or rationalizations have been justified in the name of crime prevention. The "preventive principle" was an essential legitimating element in the arrival of permanent policing from 1829 ( Newburn 2007 pp.67-81), as it was in: the codification of the criminal law; the extension of imprisonment as a penal sanction in its own right; the introduction of special measures for juvenile offenders; and the emergence of the probation service (May, 1991), to cite a few examples. The wide usage of the term bears testimony to its definitional elasticity, and its legitimation function in persuading governments to invest scarce resources in new criminal justice policies, professions and practices. Accordingly, there now exist what may be described as a variety of crime prevention discourses: different agencies mean different things by the use of the term, with such differences rooted in a range of classical, neo-classical and positivist criminological theories (Newburn 2005 118-120 ).   

The emergence of a crime prevention policy in the contemporary sense of the term—what will be called here a "functional" crime prevention policy—is a much more recent phenomenon, which began in Britain in the 1950s. Before charting the development of such a policy, however, it is worth dwelling for a moment on what might have been, as this raises a point of some relevance to the subsequent discussion.  Returning to more recent times, one begins to see the emergence of a specific crime prevention policy in Britain from 1950 when, according to the Greater London Council (GLC) (1986), the Home Office approached the insurance industry and in concert with them produced the first national publicity campaign, focused mainly on the security of business premises. Publicity campaigns have continued to be a major feature of crime prevention policy ever since, including the "lock it or lose it" and "watch out, there's a thief about" campaigns of the 1970s, and the magpie and "crime, together we'll crack it"(Rogers 2007 ) launches of the 1980s. By themselves, however, despite a significant allocation of resources, these campaigns tended to be limited in their effectiveness ( Rogers 2006 pp.213-218 ). But the growth of the private security products industry does suggest that sections of the public are overcoming their unwillingness to invest in opportunity reduction. Contemporary British policy British policy is failing to recognize the link between process and outcome, and it devotes attention to each of them in splendid isolation. It may also be that considerations beyond simple crime prevention are behind such policy; the historical account provide in the first part of this paper would certainly lend credence to such a view. Given the proven success of much situational crime prevention, it would be unfortunate if this lack of strategic oversight were to persist. A change was needed to tackle the problem of diversity, community needs and local problems. This gave birth to multi-agancy working in the police. This has already been tested in new York. Multi-agency working is fundamental to the effective operation of the criminal justice system. (Ratcliffe 2008 pp.56-73)

Making Shropshire POLICE a role Model

Reorganisation of local government ...