Transforming the English model of community safety: From crime and disorder to the safeguarding of vulnerable people
| Published date | 01 February 2020 |
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| Author | Francesca Menichelli |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895818794238 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818794238
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2020, Vol. 20(1) 39 –56
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895818794238
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Transforming the English
model of community safety:
From crime and disorder
to the safeguarding of
vulnerable people
Francesca Menichelli
University of Surrey, UK
Abstract
The literature on the English model of community safety describes it as being centrally directed,
situational in nature, focused on anti-social behaviour and incivilities and not concerned with
measures of social crime prevention. Based on an analysis of the community safety plans issued
by English and Welsh local authorities between 2010 and 2014, this article argues that such a
characterization is no longer accurate. Partnerships in England and Wales are now free from
central oversight, and increasingly focused on safeguarding. In light of the work they do in support
of vulnerable populations, and their role within the changing governance of England, more
attention should be paid to them.
Keywords
Community safety, community safety partnerships, crime and disorder, England and Wales,
safeguarding
Introduction
After a period of sustained academic interest, community safety has in recent years
slipped from the attention of researchers. This waning reflects much of what has hap-
pened at the Home Office since the end of the 1990s. After a bold start with the passing
of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (hereafter: CDA) and the subsequent activation of
lines of funding for the then newly established Crime and Disorder Reduction
Corresponding author:
Francesca Menichelli, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, AD Building, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK.
Email: f.menichelli@surrey.ac.uk
794238CRJ0010.1177/1748895818794238Criminology & Criminal JusticeMenichelli
research-article2018
Article
40 Criminology & Criminal Justice 20(1)
Partnerships, in the second half of the 2000s the Home Office stopped issuing guidance,
while funding almost disappeared. As a result, local authorities were forced to reconsider
their involvement in community safety, and community safety partnerships were left to
languish in an institutional no man’s land.
At present, this policy area is at a crossroad. This is due to the combined effect of
sustained financial pressure on local authorities and transformations in the institu-
tional and constitutional landscape within which community safety is located. The
introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (hereafter: PCCs), the establishment
of combined authorities and elected mayors, and the push towards devolution all
come to mind in this regard. As a result, community safety can either innovate and
survive, or remain an empty box in the hand of increasingly impoverished local
authorities. This necessarily raises questions about the future, if any, of the English
model of crime prevention, on which much research, both domestically and abroad,
has been carried out.
There is extensive literature on community safety and on how it has been rolled out,
mainly in England and Wales but with several forays into Scotland, and several authors
have contributed to identifying what the key features of this process have been. In a
comparative perspective, the British experience has quite commonly been contrasted to
the diverging paths taken by countries in mainland Europe (Crawford, 2009a; Hebberecht
and Baillergeau, 2012; Hebberecht and Duprez, 2002), though some have raised objec-
tions as to the existence of a British model in the first place (Gilling et al., 2013), due to
the legal, juridical, political and social differences still existing between the different
jurisdictions of the UK (McAra, 2005). My own objections rest on top of, and build
upon, these valid concerns. On one hand, from the very early days of the CDA not much
attention has been paid to local variation, both between England and Wales (however, see
Hughes et al., 2010 for a Wales-specific study) and across England and Wales as a whole.
On the other, what we know about community safety is based on research that is now
quite dated, and which does not take into account the important changes that have taken
place since.
This has left a vast gap in our knowledge of what community safety has become, of
what community safety partnerships do and whether we can actually still talk about an
English – and, possibly, Welsh – model of community safety in the first place. In light of
these concerns, this article seeks to answer the following questions. First, what does
community safety encompass now? Second, is the characterization that emerges from an
analysis of the literature still valid or, on the contrary, is there any need to amend it?
Third, can we still talk of an English/Welsh model of community safety, or are local vari-
ations emerging?
The empirical material the article relies on is both extensive and varied. First, the
analysis looks at a whole range of documents pertaining to community safety issued by
the Home Office: public service agreement targets; guidance issued to Crime and Disorder
Reduction Partnerships; national community safety plans; and national crime strategies.
Second, it includes the community safety partnership plans published in unitary authori-
ties, London and metropolitan boroughs and the community safety agreements issued in
two-tier authorities. This is in order to identify national and local priorities, and how both
changed over time.
To continue reading
Request your trial