A Study Looking at the Governance of Community Safety Partnerships in Scotland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Study looking at the Governance of Community Safety Partnerships in Scotland A Dissertation Submitted in Fulfilment of the Degree of: Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Social Science By Catherine Elizabeth Davidones School of Applied Social Science University of Stirling Scotland January 2017 1 Declaration I declare that none of the work contained within this thesis has been submitted for any other Degree at any other university. The contents found within this thesis have been composed by the candidate: Catherine Elizabeth Davidones. 2 Abstract Partnership working within the domain of the UK public sector has been the subject of academic exploration in modern times. Rhodes has written in relation to tensions around governance i.e. the ‘hollowing out of the state’ (Rhodes, 1997), with a loss of government functions limiting its capacity (Weller and Bakvis, 1997), to alternative delivery systems, such as agencies, policy networks, or partnerships involving the public, private and third sector (Rhodes, 1997; James, 2001); arguably leading to a fragmented service delivery (Powell and Exworthy, 2002). Others have argued that while the state may be fragmented it is not incapacitated (Holliday, 2000) as it uses regulatory levers to steer local government (partnerships) towards outcomes favouring central government policy. In Scotland this is achieved through Single Outcome Agreements (SOA) between central and local government set within a prescriptive framework advancing the notion of community empowerment and long term prevention; as advocated by the Christie Commission (Scottish Government, 2011c). This thesis explores the concept of partnership working by looking at the governance of community safety in Scotland; principally through Community Planning/Community Safety Partnerships during a period of significant public sector reform. Using a case study approach - data was obtained during a twelve month period (2013) principally through 50 semi-structured qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and 9 non-participant observations of partnership meetings within three distinct localities; and analysis of secondary data (policy documents). Drawing on theories around governance/partnership working, power and social capital: key themes began to emerge around tensions between central and local policy; power differentials within partnerships – relating to organisational culture and resource dependency; fiscal retrenchment and the de-prioritisation of community safety; Police reform and the impact on localism; and accountability issues relating to participatory democracy, blurred boundaries, and accountability to local communities within the governance of community safety. This thesis concludes that despite the rhetoric of localism within local governance – local communities and local government have less voice/power compared to central government, in relation to the governance of community safety, and in relation to the loss of accountability within local policing. 3 Acknowledgements Completing this PhD has been an extraordinary journey, which has been both fulfilling and frustrating in equal measure, and it is in no small thanks to the people I have encountered on my journey that the fulfilment has far exceeded the frustration and anxiety. First of all I would like to thank all those facilitators within the three case study areas who helped co-ordinate my access and made my journey a lot smoother. Particular thanks must be given to the area Housing Manager for Avon Homes in Avon Isle who went out of their way to accommodate me by finding a central location on the island to conduct the interviews, and of course a big thank-you to the interviewees themselves for giving up their time and allowing me to enter their world. Thank-you to my supervisors; Doctor Niall Hamilton-Smith and Professor Kirstein Rummery who have provided insight and support in equal measure – especially when I needed it the most – I truly would not have completed this journey without you. A special thank-you must go out to my family; especially my children Georgia and Gabriel who have had to endure ‘Uni-Mummy’ in all her stressed out glory, missing out on trips to the cinema etc., while I worked on my PhD. I promise you – I will make it up to you. Thanks must also go to my partner Alex, who has had to pick up the slack, and my sisters, Mary and Pauline, brother John, and Mum who have been there when I needed them most, and all my extended family and friends – Kym you have at times been a godsend. Thank-you also to my fellow PhD candidates; Jenny, Kirsty, Daniel, Ashleigh (Michael) and many others who have patiently listened to my woes, offered advice, and just been there. Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to my beautiful sister Vera who sadly passed away during this process – she was always there to offer support and will be deeply missed. 4 List of Acronyms ALEO Arm’s Length External Organisations ASB Anti-social behaviour CHS Children’s Hearing System CIP Community Improvement Partnership CPPs Community Planning Partnership CSB Community Safety Burnside CSPs Community Safety Partnerships CDA Crime and Disorder Act 1998 CDRPs Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships NWCPP North West Community Planning Partnership NPF National Performance Framework NPM New Public Management ODPM Office of Deputy Prime Minister PMCA Police Magistrates and Court Act 1994 PSS Police Service of Scotland SPA Scottish Police Authority SOA Single Outcome Agreement TSO Third Sector Organisation VAW Violence against Women 5 Contents page Declaration………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…….1 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..……2 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………….…..3 List of Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………….................4 Chapter 1: Introduction..…………………………………………………………………….….…......8 1.1 The Research Strategy……………………………………………………………..…....10 Chapter 2: Literature Review.…………………………………………………..……………….….…12 2.1 Westminster Model ……………………………………………………………….……..12 2.2 British Local Government Reform Post 1979…………………………….......13 2.2.1 1979 The Conservatives or the ‘New Right’ are elected….…..14 2.3 The Increasing Influence of Managerialism/NPM...………………….......16 2.4 Governance through Networks and Partnerships…...………………….….19 2.4.1 Partnership Working………………………………………………………….22 2.5 British Policing..………………………………………………………………………........29 2.5.1 Responsibilisation and Crime Prevention……………………........31 2.5.2 Performance Management and the Police…………………………32 2.6 Crime Disorder Reduction/Community Safety Partnerships.……........34 2.6.1 Social Exclusion……………………..……………………………………..…..38 2.6.2 Social Capital..……………………………………………………………….....40 2.6.3 Bonding and Bridging Social Capital..…………………………………43 2.7 Devolution and the Scottish Government..………..……….…..................44 2.7.1 Divergence and Convergence………………………….…………….…..46 2.7.2 Convergence..………………………………………………….…………………47 2.8 Community Safety Partnerships within a Scottish Context….…..……..49 2.9 Conclusion..……………………………………………..………………………….….........53 Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………….…..……..…..…..56 3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…..……..56 3.2 Bespoke Partnership Assessment Framework…….……………….…..……57 3.3 Design: The Case Study Process..……………………………........................58 3.4 The Case Study Areas…………………………………………………………….………60 3.4.1 Avonside/Avon Isle………………………………………………….….…….61 3.4.2 Burnside……………………………………………………………………..…….62 3.4.3 Cartside……………………………………………………………………..……..64 3.5 Access….…….……………………………………………………...................65 3.5.1 Problems with Access………………………………………………...………68 3.6 Analysing and Presenting the Data…..……………………………………..….….70 3.6.1 Presentation……………………………………………………………….........71 3.7 Ethics and Safety…………………………………………………………………….……...72 3.8 Reflexivity………………………………….……………………………………………........73 3.9 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………76 Chapter 4: Governance…..……………………………………………………………………….……….77 4.1 Complexity and the governance of community safety..……..…….……..77 4.2 The Policy Framework for CPPs in Scotland.…………………..……………......80 4.2.1 The Influence of the Christie Commission..……….……..…………….84 4.3 CSPs – Steering/Rowing or De-prioritisation?……….…..………................86 4.4 CPPs in Avonside, Burnside and Cartside..……..……..……………................87 4.4.1 Structural change within Community Planning/CSPs……..……...89 6 4.4.2 Growing Tensions – leadership/direction……….……………………..92 4.4.3 Growing Tensions – loss of localism..…………………………………….98 4.5 Changes in the purpose of the Partnership........................................100 4.6 Conclusion.…….………………………………………………………….…..……………….104 Chapter 5: Working in Partnership within the domain of Community Safety……108 5.1 Is Partnership Working necessary? …………….…………………………............108 5.2 Power and Decision Making..…….………………………………………….…..……..111 5.2.1 The Concept of Power……………………………………………….…..........112 5.2.2 Partnership working, power and decision making……….….……..114 5.3 Partnership identity………...…………………………………………………..….….…..118 5.4 Partnership Working and Status….…………………………….…………….…......121 5.4.1 Are agencies naturally equal?....................................................125 5.5 Partnership and commitment….……………………………………….…….….…….127 5.6 Partnership and Community Safety Initiatives….……………..….……..…….133 5.6.1 Youth Initiatives…..………………………………………………….……..……..135 5.7 Partnership Working and the impact of Austerity….………….……….…….139 5.8 Barriers to effective Partnership working….…………….…..………..….……..143 5.9 Partnership working