Interpreting Multi-Agency Partnerships: Ideology, Discourse and Domestic Violence
| Author | Tony Manzi,Peter Harvie |
| Date | 01 March 2011 |
| Published date | 01 March 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663910384907 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Interpreting
Multi-Agency
Partnerships: Ideology,
Discourse and
Domestic Violence
Peter Harvie
University of Westminster, UK
Tony Manzi
University of Westminster, UK
Abstract
This article examines local multi-agency responsesto local domestic violence, in particular
considering how the introduction of local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
(CDRP) in the UK in the late 1990s affected service provision. Using a longitudinal case
study, the article considershow feminist ideologies havebeen supplanted by a combination
of judicial processes and bureaucratic politics. These developments are represented by
threedominant discourses:‘criminal justice’,‘managerialism’and ‘equalities’; discoursesthat
have had a numberof consequences in theimplementation of domesticviolence policy. The
first is that a one-dimensional criminal justice discourse has displaced a feminist political,
power andcontrol, analysis. Second,the ascendancy ofmanagerialism has allowedprescrip-
tive short-termperformance measurement to prevailover long-term ‘sufferer-orientated’
responses,and finally an ‘equalities’discourseprioritized perpetratorinitiatives and discour-
aged dissent.The result has been thedominance of the statutorysector, a marginalizationof
voluntary agencies and a partial alienation of women’sgroups; a process which has proved
detrimentalboth to the interests of female sufferers(who form approximately 90 per cent
of victims of domestic violence) as well as voluntary agencies.
Keywords
criminal justice, discourse, domestic violence, equalities, ideology, managerialism,
multi-agency, partnerships
Corresponding author:
Tony Manzi, Department of Urban Development and Regeneration, University of Westminster, UK
Email: manzit@wmin.ac.uk
Social & Legal Studies
20(1) 79–95
ªThe Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0964663910384907
sls.sagepub.com
Introduction
As in other areas of urban policy, strategies to tackle local domestic violence have increas-
ingly relied upon ‘partnership-based’ local policy and practice networks (Diamond and
Liddle, 2005), marking a wider shift towards flexible, multi-agency models of urban gov-
ernance. The assumption behind these approaches was that previous state-based models
were both ineffective and ‘disempowering’ and that local ‘joined-up’, multi-agency direc-
tion, with community involvement, would be more effective in adapting to complex, ‘per-
sonalized’ forms of welfare service delivery. Premised on the core themes of
‘preventionism’ and ‘community’ governance (Gilling, 2007), multi-agency partnerships
were part of a political progress towards a locally informed, collaborative approach to
developing policies and practice to improve citizenship and local accountability
(Sullivan, 2002; Burnett and Appleton 2004).
This partnership approach formed a key component of the UK government’s post-
1997 ‘modernization’ agenda (Stoker, 2003) as well as forming core elements of
urban policy in otherdeveloped economies. However,the focus on partnership was linked
to a further policy objective; to produce efficiency gains by comb ining resources,
expertise and the sharing of good practice, leading to the sharing of costs (Huxham
and Vangen, 2005). These twin objectives of partnership and efficiency have been
applied in a number of policy fields, including regeneration (Goss, 2001; Russell,
2001; Glendinning et al., 2002; Rowe and Devanney, 2003), housing, and social
exclusion (Reid, 1999).
In particular, governments have been keen to use partnership approaches to ensure
more effective responses in tackling crime (Burnett and Appleton, 2004) and anti-
social behaviour (Hough et al., 2005), involving an extensive use of the criminal justice
system (Squires, 2008). In the UK, partnership working was therefore strongly linked to
crime prevention and in 1998 (through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Criminal
Justice Act 1998) community safety partnerships were introduced as a statutory require-
ment for local authorities. Statutory agencies were compelled to work with local commu-
nity groups in formulating comprehensive responses, with multi-agency partnerships
established across England and Wales in all 376 local authority areas (Simmons and
Dodd, 2003: 159). This article argues that whilst these partnership approaches may be
successful in tackling a number of local social problems, such as anti-social behaviour,
this criminal justice-based approach to local domestic violence problems has been pro-
blematic. Nevertheless, a criminal justice approach to domestic violence problems has
become accepted as a model not just in the UK but also in countries such as the US
(James-Hanman, 1999) and Australia (McDonald, 2005).
Drawing upon a detailed case study, this article considers a transformation in local
responses to domestic violence through partnership arrangements. The first section of
the article outlines the theoretical framework used – that of discourse analysis and
power relationships. The second section sets the contemporary policy context for tack-
ling domestic violence, identifying a discursive (and ideological) shift from feminism
towards legalism and bureaucratic politics. This shift is identified through three spe-
cific discourses: those of criminal justice, managerialism and equalities. The conclu-
sions consider the wider impact of these discursive changes.
80 Social & Legal Studies 20(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial