The Impact of Police and Crime Commissioners on Community Safety Agendas in England and Wales: a Comparative Study of South Wales and Avon and Somerset, 2012–2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Impact of Police and Crime Commissioners on Community Safety Agendas in England and Wales: A Comparative Study of South Wales and Avon and Somerset, 2012–2016 Sophie Chambers In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cardiff School of Law and Politics Cardiff University Submitted for examination: 2017 DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed (candidate) Date 2/8/17 STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Signed (candidate) Date 2/8/17 STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated, and the thesis has not been edited by a third party beyond what is permitted by Cardiff University’s Policy on the Use of Third Party Editors by Research Degree Students. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed (candidate) Date 2/8/17 STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed (candidate) Date 2/8/17 STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee. Signed (candidate) Date 2/8/17 Acknowledgements A thesis that takes over than 5 years to complete necessitates a long list of thanks. Firstly, thank you to my Supervisors, Adam and Stewart for their patience, counsel, and immeasurable expertise. This could not have happened without you. Secondly, thank you to the participants who gave up their time to assist in the conduct of this research. Again, this could not have happened without you. There are many other people, without whom it probably could have happened, but it would not have been as much fun. A thank you to my supportive family: to Dad (who would make an excellent Research Assistant) and Jan, for the distraction holidays, white wine spritzers, games and PCC newspaper cuttings; to Mum and David for the political distraction, dessert wine, and for being my MS Word helpline; to Katherine and Michael for the un-ending supply of gin, the dependable supply of a bed for the night, and the celebratory skiing holiday; and to Hanami, who has been an intelligent, beautiful, and hilarious, ray of light, in an often dark place. A thank you to the Cardiff University staff in SOCSI and LAWPL: Sharron, Sarah and Helen, who I am so lucky to have to support me; James Davey, a fantastic PGR Director; and the Criminology department at Cardiff for inspiring my interest in Criminology all those years ago, and for the enjoyable 2 years of teaching. A thank you also to the Criminology department of USW who have been so welcoming and accommodating over the last year. A thank to my friends, near and far: to Mark and Matt, co-creators of prosecco Tuesday; to Becca and Letty for 12 years of abstract humour, wonderfully distracting texts, and for letting me be the boss; to Cutler and Turner for the ‘unbeliezable’ over-exaggeration, and for putting me in my place when its needed; to Rob for unwittingly appealing to my competitive side; to Amy, Rob and the boys, and Gemma and Graeme for the skittles vodka, the long summer evenings, and your patience in me still being a student; to Paul and Jo for your unconditional support and patience in my absences; to Cat, Phil and Steve, for being the most wonderful spods and the best outcome of a bad situation; to the Harris and Collins families for always knowing I could do it; to all the PhD students in SOCSI and LAWPL, for the many hours spent in the Pen and Wig, particularly Holly and Lloyd, Zoe and Andrew, Mendez, Ruth, Jen, Ian, Jack, Manon, Lloyd, Matt, Alan, Rohit and Katie; and to James, a source of motivation, hilarity and adventure, all of which have been a much needed tonic. Abstract In 2012, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were elected in 41 police forces across England and Wales. This reform significantly changed the structure for police governance for the first time since the formalisation of the tripartite system in the Police Act 1964. Elected by the local public, with powers to set the police budget, hold the Chief Constable to account, create local policing strategies through public consultation, and allocate funding for community safety activities, PCCs were criticised as likely to have omnipotent power and potentially politicising the police. This theoretically driven thesis uses urban political analysis to identify the impact of these new actors on local community safety policy, specifically how the agenda is set in negotiation with other relevant actors, and the type of agenda that this negotiation produces. The multiple-embedded comparative case study design enables insight into the significance of the English and Welsh Context for PCCs, through the examination of two case study sites: Bristol, in Avon and Somerset, and Cardiff, in South Wales. Through the use of interviews, document analysis, observations and social media analysis, the impact of PCCs on local community safety agendas is evidenced to be limited due to their necessary operation within a policy network, in which other actors have community safety agenda-setting responsibilities, and resources to pursue these. The creation of PCCs’ agenda is reliant on local contingencies within the policy network, including PCCs’ claims to expertise and how they view their role, how other agencies engage with the new actor, and the local context of the case study site. This dependence on established agencies within the policy network, results in convergence of PCCs’ agendas, focused on risk management and situational crime prevention, favoured by local authorities in the era of austerity. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Literature and Policy Review ......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 1964-2012 Tripartite Structure of Police Governance .................................................................. 8 2.2 1982-1997 Voluntary Community Safety .................................................................................... 13 2.3 1997-2010 Mandatory Community Safety ................................................................................. 15 2.4 2010-2012 Period of Transition .................................................................................................. 22 2.5 Responsibilities, Prospects and Problems for PCCs .................................................................... 26 2.5.1 The Police and Crime Plan .................................................................................................... 26 2.5.2 Responsible Authorities ....................................................................................................... 27 2.5.3 The Public ............................................................................................................................. 28 2.5.4 The Police and Crime Panel .................................................................................................. 30 2.5.6 The Chief Constable ............................................................................................................. 31 2.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 33 3. Theoretical Frameworks .............................................................................................................. 35 3.1 Resources of Power-Dependence Relationships ........................................................................ 35 3.2 Dimensions of Power .................................................................................................................. 41 3.3 Regime Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 42 3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 47 4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 49 4.1 Research Strategy ....................................................................................................................... 49 4.2 Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 50 4.3 The Case and Case Study Sites .................................................................................................... 52 4.4 Units of Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 53 4.4.1 Community Safety Partnerships and Partnership Boards .................................................... 54 4.4.2 Oversight and Scrutiny Committees ...................................................................................