We Still Need To Talk About 'Community': The Continued Contestability Of Adopting Community In Criminal Justice Policy
Author | Susie Atherton |
Pages | 29-45 |
29
British Journal of Community Justice
©2020 Manchester Metropolitan University
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 16 (2) 29 - 45
WE STILL NEED TO TALK ABOUT ‘COMMUNITY’: THE
CONTINUED CONTESTABILITY OF ADOPTING
COMMUNITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY
Susie Atherton, University of Northampton
Abstract
Adopting ‘community’ in policy making reflects a desire to generate a sense of belonging
through increased citizen engagement with the state, despite the continuing contestability
of the term and diverse experiences of ‘community’ (Mair, 1995; Hughes and Rowe, 2007).
Definitions of ‘community’ include positive associations with attachment to place, activities
and people (Wilmott, 1987), and ‘belonging’ stemming from shared experiences of
adversity (Shapland, 2008). Communitarian theorists examine the relationship between
citizens and the state, alongside broader structural conditions which impact policy
implementation (Etzioni, 1995; Jordan, 1998; Hopkins-Burke, 2014). Policies focusing on
‘community’ embrace social cohesion and social capital theory as theoretical frameworks,
as found with community justice initiatives, which claim to have a transformative effect
through reducing crime, and therefore improving the quality of life for residents (Donoghue,
2014; Ward 2014). This paper uses secondary analysis and qualitative research to examine
experiences of community and crime in Middlesbrough, through the lens of Layder’s (2006)
social domain theory. The findings reveal that differing accounts of community are affected
by crime, anti-social behaviour and broader structural changes. It reiterates the need for
policy makers to better understand how community is experienced, and to re-examine what
is required for the effective implementation of policy.
Keywords
Community, crime, engagement, social domains, social policy
Atherton
30
Introduction
Examining the validity of ‘community’ as a basis for policy is nothing new, the contestability
of this approach has been raised with reference to the implementation of community justice
and community safety initiatives (Mair, 1995; Squires, 2006 and Hughes and Rowe, 2007).
Hughes and Rowe (2007) state the adoption of ‘community’ in criminal justice policy
appeals to governments, who value its ‘normative and political effects’ (p318). This
approach is evident in social policies such as f ormer Prime Minister David Cameron’s ‘Big
Society’ initiative (Alcock, 2012) and New Labour’s ‘Active Citizenship’ and ‘Neighbourhood
Renewal’ agendas (Rai, 2008). This enduring adoption of ‘community’ in policy requires us
to revisit the concerns previously raised, especially given the stated aims of community
justice initiatives. They explicitly promise to reduce crime and support victims, as would be
expected. However, they make additional claims to have ‘transformative’ effects for local
residents, through generating social cohesion or social capital and improving the overall
quality of life for the whole community (Karp and Clear, 2000; Wolf, 2007; Donoghue, 2014).
This assumes those living and working in any given place have the means, ability and will to
build on or create social cohesion and social capital, and that they would do this in response
to crime. The adoption of community in social policy needs to be re-examined in light of
these assumptions, in order to establish a better understanding into the various experiences
of community and the specific challenges faced when attempting to engage citizens to work
with the state.
This paper aims to do this by examining a community justice case study in Middlesbrough.
It draws on empirical qualitative data from practitioners, volunteers and residents,
reporting on their perspectives on community and community engagement in response to:
a community court pilot established in 2010; and the local neighbourhood policing teams
and restorative practice initiatives that operated alongside the court. The fieldwork was
undertaken in the wards of Gresham and North Ormesby in Middlesbrough, referred to by
local residents as “Doggy”.
The data was analysed using Layder’s (2006) social domain theory as it offered a means by
which to examine individual experiences as psycho-biographies of community and
engagement in the context of the other three domains which comprise Layder’s theory.
These are situated activities (regular, informal interactions), social settings (formal
interactions with the state and third sector to address specific problems) and contextual
resources (broader socio-economic conditions). Examining experiences of community and
engagement through these domains enabled a more comprehensive understanding of the
various factors which influence this, in the context of established definitions and theories
associated with ‘community’.
To examine the contestability of community in social policy, this article will review
definitions of community and theories associated with this, in the context of the term as it
is deployed in social policy. There is then a more detailed examination of social capital and
social cohesion as frameworks for policy aiming to improve quality of life at a local level. As
further important context for the discussions of findings, there is a brief overview of the
community which forms the fieldwork site for this study. The findings are presented to
reflect two clear themes of the experiences of community and how this is impacted by crime
To continue reading
Request your trial