Exploring law enforcement and public health as a collective impact initiative: lessons learned from Tasmania as a case study
| Date | 12 June 2017 |
| Pages | 79-92 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-03-2017-0014 |
| Published date | 12 June 2017 |
| Author | Roberta Julian,Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron,Jackie Hallam,Clarissa Hughes |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Invited paper
Exploring law enforcement and public
health as a collective impact initiative:
lessons learned from Tasmania as
a case study
Roberta Julian, Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron, Jackie Hallam and Clarissa Hughes
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential benefits as well as some of the practical
barriers to the implementation of a collective impact initiative in law enforcement and public health (LEPH) in
Tasmania, Australia.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper is based on a review of programs, agencies and initiatives that
are at the intersection of LEPH in Tasmania, through an analysis of the findingsin evaluation reports, and the views
of practitioners identified at a workshop on LEPH held at a national AOD conference and facilitated by the authors.
Findings –The strengths of collective impact initiatives, particularly in LEPH, are presented and some
weaknesses identified. Some major obstacles to the consolidation of LEPH initiatives include siloed ways of
working and budgets, lack of leadership and political will. Some progress has been made in addressing these
weaknesses, although addressing complex social problems by moving beyond inter-agency collaboration
toward an integrated model of service provision remains challenging.
Practical implications –The authors argue that there are practical benefits to the adoption of a collective
impact model to address problems in Tasmania that lie at the nexus between LEPH. In reviewing existing
collaborations, the authors demonstrate the value of a structural mapping process to identify ways forward
for government and non-government agencies that are inclined to go further in merging the two disciplinary
areas. The authors offer some suggestions with respect to identifying the preconditions for a collective impact
model and how to build on these to initiate action.
Originality/value –A significant proportion of the literature on LEPH remains at a conceptual and theoretical level.
This contribution highlights some practical issues while looking at existing examples of collaboration across LEPH at
a state level in Australia, and starts mapping a way forward for constructing more integrative LEPH initiatives.
Keywords Collaboration, Public health,Service provision, Lawenforcement, Vulnerability, Collective impact
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The law enforcement and public health ( LEPH) movement is ga ining worldwide tr action
(Jardine, 2013; Wood et al., 2013). It advocates for a fresh approach to human service delivery,
recognizing that law e nforcement and health a re intimately relat ed and should work closely
together to prevent problems, and to monitor and increase population health and public safety.
LEPH is an evidence-based multi-disciplinary approach that challenges the way law
enforcement and health are currently administered, shifting from intersection to integration at
Received 16 March 2017
Revised 4 April 2017
Accepted 5 April 2017
Roberta Julian is an Associate
Professor at the Tasmanian
Institute of Law Enforcement
Studies, University of
Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron is a
Senior Lecturer and a Senior
Researcher at the TILES
University of Tasmania,
University of Tasmania, Hobart,
Australia.
Jackie Hallam is based at
Alcohol, Tobacco and other
Drugs Council of Tasmania,
Hobart, Australia.
Clarissa Hughes is a Senior
Lecturer in Rural Health at the
School of Nursing, Midwifery
and Indigenous Health, Charles
Sturt University –Bathurst
Campus, Bathurst, Australia.
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-03-2017-0014 VOL. 3 NO. 2 2017, pp.79-92, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
PAGE 7 9
To continue reading
Request your trial