Multi-agency Work

What do we mean by “multi-agency“?

• “… a relatively formalised arrangement between two or more organisations in order to achieve a set of objectives, generally with a degree of independence from any one partner” (Sterling, 2005: 139)

• “Local multi-agency partnerships have been established in a number of complex areas of public policy,such as crime reduction and public health, in order to determine and work towards shared local priorities; oversee services which are provided jointly; and manage the risks and interdependencies between work carried out on a single agency basis” (Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates, 2015)

Why do we need multi-agency approaches?

• “The sheer number of agencies [in the criminal justice system] makes the smooth passage of criminal cases hard to achieve. Delivery partners need to work well together at national and local
  level, focusing on how best to achieve the overall objectives of the CJS, rather than only focusing on optimising the performance of their own organisations."

• Improving the Criminal Justice System – lessons from local change projects: a joint report by HMIC, HMCPSI, HMI Probation and the National Audit Office, HMI Probation, May 2012

  
  

History of partnership working

• Labour government since 1997 expanded partnership working — over 3,300 arrangements and £3billion public expenditure by 2005

• Continued work of previous conservative administration in harnessing potential of Third Sector

• Created new professional and quasi-professional roles: care managers, teaching assistants, probation service officers

• Unintended consequences and increased complexity as a result of multi-agency partnership working arrangements

Mixed economy of welfare

• Market (or private sector

• State (or public sector) or government

• Families / communities

• Third sector (or voluntary)

Service provision in a mixed economy

• Changes over time in the nature of the mixed economy
  of service provision

• E.g. post-1945 social democratic settlement placed the
  State at the heart of being producer and provider of services

• 1980s/90s witnessed resurgence of Right Realism, and this impacted on policies and practices of criminal justice agencies [e.g. Probation]

• Residual gap in service provision an unintended consequence of this

• New approaches emerged in the 1990s with community at their heart

• Efforts to resolve crime problems underpinned by Left Realism

• Left Realist principles adopted in policy, allowing mixed economy of service to mediate relationships between formal agencies and offenders / victims

Implementing multi-agency approaches

• “The cause of so many political and social ills … is the civic decline that is evidenced in the weakening sense of solidarity in some local communities and urban neighbourhoods, high levels of crime, and the break-up of marriages and families” (Giddens, 1998: 78)

• Arrest civic decline through re-engaging individuals and communities to tackle local issues, in partnership with criminal justice agencies [e.g. the police]

• Found in provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

• Crime and Disorder Act 1998 – statutory responsibility for local authorities to engage with crime reduction strategies

• Audit of crime in local area – consultation with relevant stakeholders [e.g. education, health, fire services, probation staff]— strategy to tackle crime reduction

• Consider implications of crime reduction interventions on other areas – e.g. school exclusions can increase crime

• Act introduced Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships [CDRPs] and Community Safety Partnerships [CSPs]

• These were target-driven, performance-related and managerialist in nature

• There was a “top down” approach from central government, which imposed priorities, targets and standards on local police forces

• Police Standards Unit (2001) and Police Reform Act (2002) meant police forces had statutory obligation to follow these central orders

• Local priorities may not match national priorities – difficulty of local agencies having their ideas seen to be legitimate

• Third Sector is highly effective at responding to local problems, but funding limited in this area

• Paradox between trying recognising need to re-engage communities, and having to coerce partners to do so
  

Summary

• Multi-agency approaches in criminal justice are complex and bring together a range of different agencies

• Taken greater prominence since mid- to late-1990s

• Can provide clear benefits to help to reduce crime in local areas, but can be difficult to manage with competing priorities

• MAW brings people together to find ways to prevent crime from taking place in local areas

• Reduces crime and victims, listens to the voices of local people, brings justice to the victim

• Challenges such as poor communication, priorities, funding, resources, sharing of information and knowledge