The Politics of Crime Prevention

Brigitte C.M. Koch

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9781138344396
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429797354
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book is a comprehensive account of crime prevention policy in England and Wales. It examines crime prevention policy under the Conservative Government and examines the direction that the newly elected Labour administration is taking. Particular attention is paid to the years 1995 to 1997. The book goes beyond the Home Office and examines the roles of the Police, Probation, Crime Concern, NACRO, the Local Government Association and the role of the national Community Safety Network in national crime prevention policy making. It examines how some agencies influence policy and how others have struggled to have a voice. The methods used to conduct the research include interviewing key persons involved in national crime prevention policy making; distributing questionnaires to police and probation officers of all ranks in Boroughville; and analyzing documents from various organizations such as the Police Probationer Training manual and minutes to the Association of Chief Police Officers sub-committee on crime prevention from their inaugural meeting in September 1986 until May 1995.

1 Introduction

Crime and crime prevention theories are influenced by the social and economic context and have evolved over time. This is linked to the society we live in and to the politics of the day (Sykes and Cullen, 1992). Bottoms and Wiles (1996: 10) indicated that “the development of contemporary forms of crime prevention can best be understood as part of a much wider process of change in contemporary Western societies”.

The following account of changes in the social-economic context since World War II is by no means exhaustive and the reader is referred to Bottoms and Wiles (1995, 1996), Savage and Charman (1996), and Hogwood (1992) for more detailed accounts.

After World War II, the role of the state became one of provider of last resort (for example through the welfare system). This ultimately displaced the economic role of the family and voluntary social organisations. In 1973, the world went into an economic crisis initially triggered by oil price increases, which eventually led governments to become more aware of spending growth. Since World War II the cost to the state of acting as ‘the provider of last resort’ as a share of national income has steadily increased. This is true of every developed country.

Savage and Charman (1996: 40) state,

the capacity of governments to finance the public sector, and in particular ‘social expenditure’ or the ‘welfare state’, was placed under increasing pressure. Variously defined as the ‘fiscal crisis of the state’ (O’Connor 1973; see also Johnston, 1996) or ‘overloaded government’ (Brittan, 1975), depending on one’s theoretical and political stance, the conflict of ever expanding public expenditure and a decreasing capability of government revenue - mainly fiscally-based - to fund it, became increasingly acute.

Now governments to the left and right are trying to redefine the appropriate functions of the state. The push by both major parties in Britain is towards individual responsibility and away from state dependency (e.g., see Sherman, 1996). Savage and Charman (1996: 53) maintain “constraint in the public sector is unlikely to be abandoned whichever political party takes Britain into the next millennium”. This affects criminal justice policy and more specifically crime prevention, both via funding constraints and changing political priorities. As Graham and Bennett (1995: 1) argue, “the role of the state has increasingly diminished and it has become accepted that neither the government nor the police can tackle crime alone”.

Within the domain of criminal justice, recorded crime rates increased steadily from the 1960s until 1992. Taking this fact into account with the following trends in crime prevention is helpful in understanding the current characteristics of crime prevention in England and Wales.

In the 1960s prevention was mainly based on rehabilitation and treatment. In 1966, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) was established. During this period, resource constraints were not a major issue, and there was a belief in the government’s ability to solve social problems.

The economic crisis of the 1970s coupled with the criminological findings from the United States from Martinson and Wilson led to great pessimism. Martinson (1974: 34) declared that there “is very little reason to hope that we have in fact found a sure way of reducing recidivism and rehabilitation”. Wilson (1975) claimed that there was not a lot one could do about crime because we could not change human nature. Wilson (1975) and others believed crime could not be eliminated. All one could do was to try and manage it. This (a) opened the door for managerialism, and (b) shifted the focus in crime prevention away from the offender to the victim and the opportunity for crime. The middle of the 1970s was thus a turning point both for criminology and for the economy.

During the 1980s in England and Wales, the emphasis in crime prevention was placed on utilising situational or opportunity reduction strategies in designing communities and rebuilding neighbourhoods. The notion of local agencies working together with local people was popular and the period was characterised by an emphasis on multi-agency cooperation. Initiatives such as the Five Towns Initiative, and Safer Cities were launched by the Home Office.

This change in crime prevention policy, coupled with the fact that in 1979 the Conservative party came into power, prompted “a reaction on the part of some sections of the socialist academy in Britain to the general experience of Thatcherism” (Taylor, 1992: 95). This lead to left realist criminology. Left realist criminologists pointed out the social injustices of Conservative government policies and highlighted the fact that criminology was drawn “into the wider political realm and <that> crime control must inevitably become part of a comprehensive political programme. For too long we have pretended it could be otherwise” (Matthews and Young: 1992: 21).

This notion of crime and politics is examined within this research. This research also draws on left realism in that “it draws freely on a tradition of critical theorizing which aims to demystify and dereify social relations” (Matthews and Young, 1992: 4). In other words, the author attempted to demystify or clarify how crime prevention policy making is structured organisationally and to investigate the role of social relationships within the decision making process.

During the 1990s one has, so far, observed a move away from communities and multi-agency co-operation to a much more localised, targeted and short-term approach to crime prevention. To use King’s (1989: 300) adjectives, the values of “consumerism, individualism and self-reliance” are strongly advocated along with the emphasis on individual responsibility. Technological anti-crime products are recommended from alarm systems to Closed Circuit Television systems (CCTVs) to more effective computers and programmes for the police (e.g., for crime pattern analysis). The role of detection as a last resort for crime prevention initiatives is also emphasised (see for example, Anderson, Chenery and Pease [1995]).

The term ‘multi-agency’ was replaced by ‘partnership’ by the Conservative political masters, and the role of the community was replaced by the role of the individual. Statements such as “least attention has been given to social crime prevention” (Bright, 1991: 64), and “if one surveys the publicity literature disseminated by the Home Office ..., the overriding theoretical implication seems to be that most crime is a product of opportunity and the way to prevent crime is to reduce opportunities” (King, 1989) are found to be true in this research.

Given that a new government came into power in May 1997, it is possible that the focus on prevention will shift more towards a focus on technological advances combined with the notion of focusing on the ‘at risk’ population (as per David Farrington and Ken Pease).

According to Ruggiero (1992: 123), within criminology “we are witnessing a process of politicization. This is a function of changing political imperatives and the attempts to create a one-dimensional society aimed at constraining critical discourses”. “The priority is assigned to quantitative as opposed to qualitative research” (Ruggiero, 1992: 125). This ties in with managerialism and the idea of having strategic plans, mission statements, and key performance indicators to measure aspects of efficiency and effectiveness (see Bottoms, 1995; and McLaughlin and Muncie, 1994).

This research takes account of these developments in attempting to understand the context of crime prevention between 1995 and 1997. In determining how crime prevention came to be what it is today, Cohen’s (1985) five models of rhetoric and reality were considered. Thus, key organisations involved in national crime prevention policy making were examined, professionals within those organisations were interviewed, the political ideology of the Conservative party was examined as was the power of the state in policy making; and finally, the structure of crime prevention policy was explored.

Before diving into the research findings, this chapter examines the purpose of this research in more depth. It also discusses the methods utilised for the research and theories of crime prevention which are particularly relevant for the analysis and definitions of crime prevention. Finally the structure of this research is summarised.

Purpose of Research

This research was done to understand how crime prevention policy was determined in England and Wales. The aims were to determine:

1) Who influences crime prevention policy at the national level?

2) How is crime prevention at the national level structured?

3) What the role is of these various organisations in crime prevention and what they actually do?

This research explains how crime prevention policy developed from 1979 until mid 1997 at a national level. This was done in order to illustrate how the prominence of crime prevention developed and to illustrate how crime prevention was conceptualised between 1995 and 1997. Agencies that actively played a part in national crime prevention policy making were identified, and the manner in which they influenced national policy was examined.

This research examines the relationships between the key national agencies and the people involved in national crime prevention policy making - a task which has not been undertaken before. It analyses official and unofficial documents and includes interviews with key persons involved in the process. It is an in-depth examination of national crime prevention policy making as opposed to a commentary.

While conducting the research many themes were investigated. These themes aimed to:

1) investigate what crime prevention means at the national level;

2) study the nature of crime prevention policy making;

3) examine the role of the individual in making things happen;

4) investigate the extent of political ideology in crime prevention policy;

5) investigate the influence of politicians on policy making;

6) examine the relationship between political ideology and research/practice;

7) examine trends that have occurred over the past eighteen years;

8) investigate how national crime prevention is organised, including the role played by national crime prevention (sub) committees;

9) determine the prominence of crime prevention within each agency examined in this research;

10) examine the role of each agency in crime prevention policy making;

11) determine who has responsibility for crime prevention;

12) investigate whether national instructions for local practice are consistent with national practice;

13) investigate whether issues raised at the national level in this research are also applicable to local level research done by others;

14) determine whether perceived roles of local police and probation officers in Boroughville are consistent with national findings.

The research did not evaluate actual crime prevention initiatives or projects, nor did it focus on one particular form of crime prevention. Tertiary crime prevention (defined later in this chapter) was ignored in this research. This was not a conscious decision of the author, but rather the result of interviews and sources analysed which did not consider tertiary forms of crime prevention to fall under this heading. Generally speaking, tertiary crime prevention fell under the headings of ‘prisons’ or ‘probation’. The fact that tertiary crime prevention fell under the heading of ‘probation’ was one explanation why the probation service’s role was questioned by policy makers and politicians within the field. In this research, the author examined the potential role of the probation service in primary and secondary prevention.

Methods

In conducting this research a decision had to be made on who or which agencies affected National Crime Prevention Policy. An obvious starting point was the Home Office since it determines national crime prevention policy for all of England and Wales. In speaking to Home Office officials and by reading through the literature, it was obvious that the police also had a role to play at the national level by giving advice to the crime prevention minister and the Home Secretary. This was done through Her Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary, ACPO, The Home Office Standing Conference on Crime Prevention, the National Board for Crime Prevention, and the National Crime Prevention Agency.

Only national organisations which included crime prevention as a part of their remit were examined, thus eliminating all local initiatives involved in crime prevention practice. Although the ‘Business Sector’ was recognised as playing a large role in crime prevention, there is no organisation which represents the entire industry’s interests. For example, in the National Crime Prevention Agency only Vauxhall Motors and J. Sainsbury Plc are represented.

In the end the researcher was left with the Home Office, the Police Service, the Probation Service, Crime Concern, NACRO, and the Local Government Association. Those interviewed agreed that these were the agencies most influential in crime prevention policy making, albeit to different degrees. This is specifically in relation to the role of the probation service and NACRO. More shall be said about this issue later in the research.

Funded national programmes such as Safer Cities were not analysed in this research since they were considered to be a consequence of policy as opposed to a policy making instrument. Where pilot crime prevention initiatives were introduced and evaluated (e.g., the Five Towns Initiative),¹ their effects on policy making itself were considered to be minimal since the ‘second’ phases (e.g., Safer Cities Phase I and Safer Cities Phase II) were introduced before evaluation results were available (Interview).²

The methods utilised in conducting the research included (1) reviewing the literature; (2) conducting interviews; (3) analysing internal documentation; and (4) distributing questionnaires.

Reviewing the Literature

In reviewing the literature on crime prevention in England and Wales, sources such as journals, books, pamphlets, and conference speeches were used. The sample of informati...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The Home Office as a Whole
• 3 The Home Office Departments
• 4 The Police Service
• 5 The Probation Service
• 6 Crime Concern & NACRO
• 7 National Representation for Local Authorities
• 8 Conclusion
• References
• Appendices