IDENTIFY CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF LOCAL CRIME PREVENTION PLANNING. DISCUSS THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ENGAGING RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS:

Contemporary criminological philosophy has placed significant weight on the role of planning, preparation, and development of crime prevention strategies in the endeavour of successfully reducing crime. This is largely due to prevention measures being tailored to specific conditions and not broad context and nature of crime as it not possible to recommend measures that fit all situations (Geason S, Wilson R 1988: 10). Moving away from broad state level responses to crime, current approaches have placed importance on local governments and community patnerships. Adopting a patnership perspective is effective in addressing areas of crime in which traditonal agencies fail to cover. Conversly, a partnershp perspective can give rise to various problems especially problems associated with the involvment of relevant stakeholders. The purpose of this essay is to identify key elements of a crime prevention plan while taking into consideration the benefits and challenges of engaging relevant stakeholders. By exploring these two key areas a better understanding of local crime prevention planning will be gained.

The development of a local crime prevention plan needs to incorporate partnerships between local government and relevant stakeholders. The partnership model is underpinned by the key assumption that community safety by its nature is a multi-faceted problem and beyond the capacity of any single agency to address (Cherney 2004:237). The involvement of local government with other relevant bodies is seen as the most effective way of delivering effective crime prevention, giving rise to numerous benefits (Crawford and Jones 1995). This is largely due to local parties having vast knowledge and capacities to identify specific crime precipitating factors that statewide and regional strategies sometimes fail to acknowledge (QLD government 2002). Thus, the risk of being less effective in preventing crime the inclusion of partnerships and agency cooperation is key to a crime prevention plan as supporters for the multi-agency view it as being the ‘panacea’ of the criminal justice crisis (Crawford and Jones 1995). Some key components of a local crime prevention plan will be outlined below: It must be noted that disceprancies arsie in proposed methods of research in developing a crime strategy, however for the purpose of this essay only the critical elements of the plan will be identified, they are as follows:

The first step in developing a crime prevention plan which endorses a multi-agency approach is the initial task of identifying the crime problem. Identifying the problem of crime is an essential to the process as it not only equips one with knowledge on the nature and extent of crime but also stands as a foundation to propose intended goals, aims, and outcomes (Queensland Government 2002). The NSW attorney Generals Department recommends the use of crime profiles to obtain an assortment of information of crime . This crime profile was successfully utilized by Manly city council as they used sources such as NSW Bureau of statistics, crime surveys, data collected from local Police to create an understanding of the existence of crime in the local. The information was used to identify key areas of concern, including theft, alcohol related violence, and drink driving (Manly city council 2002:7).

The analysis of the information can then be used to identify certain areas of crime which need targeting and in turn help to identify potential stakeholders (Attorney’s general department 2007). The second step of the process best reflects a multi-agency approach in crime prevention as it involves the establishing of a committee that represents numerous direct and indirect stakeholders concerning the crime problem. A crime prevention officer should also be a appointed as member of the committee who along with the rest of the stakeholders have the role of implementing, overseeing, monitoring and evaluating the crime prevention plan (Crime Division of NSW 2007). Some examples of stakeholders that can be part of this committee include representatives from law enforcement, educational, student, community, ethnic groups, and health organisations. Structural and power issues may arise in the group dynamics of the committee and pose a major challenge for crime prevention planning. This will be discussed in the latter part of the essay.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Once the committee has been established and an understanding of the nature of crime has occurred, the research and development of specific strategies can start to be initiated (Attorney General’s Department). Identifying specific crimes, and the various responses to such crimes is essential to the planning process as Poyner and Webb (in Geason S, Wilson R 1988) argue a major problem that arises in poor crime prevention plans is the adoption of stereotypical measures copied from general crime-prevention literature, without the considering the actual suitability for a particular problem (Poyner and Web 1986 in Geason S, Wilson R 1988: 12). Issues such as effectiveness, efficiency, impacts, and costs, and consequences all need to be taken into consideration before any final proposal. An example of various proposed strategies to target a specific crime can be highlighted in the Dubbo Crime Prevention Plan. In their response to the high level youth crime, they proposed various approaches including lobbying for a youth development officer, implement night patrols, educate youths of anti social behaviour (Dubbo City council 2002). The proposed strategies reflect the councils consideration of various factors including issues such as short term impact vs long term, social implications, costs, and likelihood of success. Another integral part of this step is the establishment of partnerships with stakeholders that be may be affected by these proposed strategies. By creating such partnerships the implementation of stratgies may occur upon the final analysis.

After researching, reviewing, revising, and agreeing with proposed strategies the next phase of the local crime prevention planning is the documenting of the proposed plan. The development of what has been termed ‘Action Plan’ is a procedural matter that stands as a blueprint for implementing a crime prevention project. It summarizes the specific strategies contained within the plan that outlines when, how and who will implement these (Crime Division of NSW 2007). An Action Plan will act as a guide in the implementation of the project by documenting, evaluating, and reporting on critical elements of the project (Queensland Government 2002: 26) and act to seek external endorsement

This leads to the stage in the process; ‘seeking community endorsement’. Before the crime prevention plan can be implemented it should have community support. Community consultation can potentially be vital to the effectiveness of the plan, as it provides valuable information from broader perspective of the community, outside the view of the governing committee. This process of seeking community endorsement is in fact a legislative requirement as governed by the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 which aims to provide legislative assistance in facilitating the preparation of crime prevention and in doing so maintains fairness by allowing the community to voice criticisms of any plans designed for them. Section 34 (1) of the act (cited from www.legislation.nsw.gov.au) stipulates that a council must display a draft of the plan to the community, and must take into consideration submissions made by the public (S. 34(4) Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 ). Once it has met with the requirements of the legislation the plan is essentially ready for implantation.

The implementation step of the crime prevention plan places everything that has been developed in the action plan to practice. The Attorney Generals Departments (NSW 2007) advises for this to occur successfully, one person should be appointed to implement the plan and for keeping projects on course. Ideally, this should be a council employee who is also involved in the partnership group (Attorneys General Department 2007)

A major setback in the implementation process that needs to be taken into account, is the availability of funds to carry out the proposed strategies. Funding is one of the most significant reasons in accomplishing goals, as the monetary resources can be difficult to gain. Obtaining these funds consists consultation of relevant stakeholders, whom ultimately would benefit from the plan, but also funding from state governments in the form of grants. The importance of controlling these funds can be conveyed in the development of a project budget.

The final stage in the development of a crime prevention plan is the monitoring and evaluation phases. A crucial aspect of the plan, evaluation is critical because provides valuable information about the programs appropriateness, acceptability to important stakeholders, efficacy and efficiency (English et al 2002: 119). The key to success of this stage is the incorporation of the evaluated information into a new plan, or new strategies. Evaluation is wasted time and money if the results are not fed back into the planning process (Crime Division of NSW 2007). There are numerous ways to evaluate the success of a plan as English et al (pg 127) outlines five various approaches to good evaluation; goal-based, decision orientated, systems analysis, professional review, and illuminative/responsive. Designed to achieve different objectives, they all aim to assist in the crime prevention planning process.

There are many challenges and obstacles that have to be considered when creating a multi-agency crime prevention plan. In particular, the demanding task of engaging stakeholders in the crime prevention planning process One major reason for this is the unequal distribution of power between these partnerships which often lead to a failure of acknowledging smaller less powerful groups. This can lead to conflicts of interests and deter minority stakeholders to take part in such collaborations. Laycock and Tilley (1995) also identify several other challenges of this process, including the difficulties of promoting the interests of stakeholders due to financial expectations, and also the difficulties in maintaining momentum once these plans have been initiated. This next section of the essay will take into consideration these various perspectives highlighting the challenges and difficulties that may arise when adopting a multi-agency approach

The unequal distribution of power between stakeholders introduces the first key challenge in facilitating multi-agency crime prevention. In Local crime prevention initiatives some agencies are consistently more powerful then others (Sampson et al 1988). Police are often the most dominant stakeholder in multi agency approach due to their perceived ‘custodian ships of information about crime and is established expertise in crime control’ (Gillens 2000:134). Their crime prevention interests are however questionable as police are largely involved in crime detection rather then crime prevention, highlighted in the fact that police culture continues to undervalue skills in prevention (Beyer 1991 in Sarre 1997: 77). This can create many conflicts between stakeholders, as the interest aims and goals of the various stakeholders maybe placed subordinate to the dominant group. For instance, it has been alleged that ‘police only work in partnerships in their own terms’ (Gillens 2000) and ‘take over’ multi agency approach as they gain the cooperation of other stakeholders to pursue police defined goals, rather then consulting with others to meets collectively defined objectives and goals (Christian 1986 in Sampson et al1986.) Sarre reinforces this as she Sarre comments, dominant players such as the police are unwilling to step to one side and assume a secondary role in determining implementation needs (Sarre 1997: 76).

Because multi-agency approaches tend to reflect dominant practices of more powerful state agencies smaller less dominant groups are excluded from multi-agency agenda’s. (Sampson). That is, as Goris puts it ‘Inequalities between agencies will be transferred to inequalities between groups within the community’ (Gori 2001: 449). For example, in developing approaches to dealing with the problem of youth crime, a police perspective of ‘getting tough’ on crime may supersede a youth perspective of resolving youth social problems (Gori 2001).

Therefore relatively low influence of certain stakeholders can be quite problematic for them to engage in a collective approach because of the perception that their views and opinions will not be heard or shared amongst others in the committee. These smaller or minority representatives are, in turn, often found “awkward” and “narrowly self-interested” by those in statutory agencies. If not obliged to take part, members are, of course, free to refuse to join or to withdraw or to undermine what is being attempted (Liddle and Gelsthorpe 1994: in Laycock and Tilley 1995).

Laycock and Tilley (1995) raise various other challenges of engaging stakeholders in the multi-agency approach of crime prevention. The first challenge that they propose concerns the difficulties that arise in promoting interest of crime prevention. Crime prevention is often perceived as being ‘expensive’ and ‘ineffective’ by stakeholders and not proportional to the expenses that incur in trying to be involved in partnership methods (Laycock and Tilley 1995). Funding is the central problem as many stakeholders are not able to meet the financial demands of some strategies. Furthermore, because most prevention programs are of long term nature some stakeholders such as local business, may not be unable to justify depositing large amounts of money for results that will not be seen immediately. Therefore, this means small and local businesses often excluded from such plans as generally larger business are involved because they have the amounts of money to be involved and hence, reinforces the segregation and exclusion capacities of crime prevention plans.

Laycock and Tilley identify ‘maintaining momentum’ as another key problem in engaging stakeholders to be engaged in the crime prevention process. Maintaining momentum refers to the problem of gaining the confidence of potential sponsors (Laycock and Tilley 1995) as it is often a long tedious process in which the stakeholders progressively lose interest. Berry and Carter (1992 In Laycock and Tilley 1995) explain this phenomenon by introducing the notion of ‘life cycle’ to describe the momentum process, arguing that in the initial phases of crime prevention planning stakeholders are active and keen on the process, however this effect generally wears off as ‘crime prevention initiative diminishes’ indicating a shifting to the next phase of the cycle (Berry and Carter 1992 cited in Laycock and Tilley 1995:576). This poses as a major problem for founders and supporters for the plan, as it is up to the role of coordinator or leader to ‘revitalize’ the prevention efforts.

To finally conclude, it can be seen that the adoption a multi agency approach in crime prevention can have several benefits including, being specifically able to cater to local problems, target certain areas, and cover social problems of crime. The development of a crime prevention plan should entail these benefits as critical elements were identified; they included the identification of the problem, establishing a committee, develop strategies, document in an action plan, seek community endorsement, implement then finally evaluate. Numerous challenges were taken into consideration in adopting such a plan, as the power relations between organizations were examined, raising concerns of equality, as well as general difficulties of engaging stakeholders and maintaining momentum. All in all, the careful analysis of the interaction of between stakeholders and crime prevention planning is vital to its success.

Attorney General Department NSW (2007) Developing a crime prevention plan Crime Prevention Division () last accessed 21/5/07

Cherney A (2004) ‘Crime Preventino/Community Safety Patnership in Action: Victorian Experience’ Current Issues in Criminal Justic Vol 15, No, 3 ‘

Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 cited in

Last accessed 21/5/07

Crawford A, Jones R (1995) Inter-agency and community based crime prevention- some reflections on the work of Pearson and colleagues British Journal of Criminology Vol 35 No.1 Winter 1995

Crime Prevention Division NSW (2007) ‘Resources Manual’ last accessed 21/5/07

Dubbo City council (2002) ‘Dubbo Crime Prevention Plan’

www.dubbo.nsw.gov.au/repositories/files/CPP-COUNCIL-APPROVED-JULY-2002.pdf

last accessed 20/5/07

English B; Cummings R Stratro R (2003) ‘Choosing and Evaluation Model for Community Creim Prevention Programs in Tilley N Evaluations in crime prevention, Crime Prevnetion Studies Volume 14

Geason S, Wilson R (1988: 10-13) ‘planning a crime prevention program Crime prevention : theory and practice Australian Institute of Criminology

Gilling D (2000) Policing, Crime Prevention and Partnerships in Leishman F; Loveday, B and Savage S (eds) Core issues in Policing 2nd Edition Longman London

Gori P ( 2001 ) COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION AND THE ‘PARTNERSHIP

APPROACH’: A SAFE COMMUNITY FOR EVERYONE? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 9: 447–457, 2001. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherlands.

Laycock G Nick Tilley (1995) Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice, Vol. 19 pp. 535-584.

Manly City Council (2002) ‘Crime Profile’ www.manly.nsw.gov.au/downloaddocument.aspx?DocumentID=97

Last accessed 21/5/07

Queensland Government ‘A Strategic framework for community crime prevention’ Published by Crime Prevention Queensland, Department of the Premier & Cabinet.

Queensland Government (2002) ‘BUILDING SAFER COMMUNITIES : A CRIME PREVENTION MANUAL FOR QUEENSLAND’ Published by Crime Prevention Queensland, Department of the Premier & Cabinet.

Sampson A, Stubbs P, Smith D, Pearson G, Blagg H (1988) ‘Crime localities and the multi-agency approach’ Brit Journal of Criminology Vol 28. No 4