Editorial

Citation

Bateman, T. and Fox, C. (2012), "Editorial", Safer Communities, Vol. 11 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/sc.2012.56011baa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Safer Communities, Volume 11, Issue 2

In Volume 11.1, Safer Communities devoted a special themed issue entirely to articles focusing, from a variety of perspectives, on the urban disturbances of August 2011. In this, and forthcoming editions, the journal will feature further contributions that deal with the riots since the ongoing relevance of those events is undeniable. The August riots – mediated no doubt by other considerations – continue to provide the primary context for developments in criminal justice policy and community safety practice. For instance, the government gang’s strategy, with its renewed focus on early intervention, the commitment to establish a network of “troubleshooters” with a remit to focus on families classified as “troubled”, and the proposed extension of mandatory prison sentences to children aged 16-17 years convicted of certain forms of knife crime, can all be seen as responses to those episodes of disorder.

Perhaps equally importantly, it is by no means clear that the possibility of further riots in the near further can be precluded. Against this background, Ellie Sapsed and Stephen Simpkin’s article in this edition considers what makes some areas more susceptible to riots than others. It proceeds by indentifying characteristics common to areas that experienced disturbances during August 2011, and builds on this analysis to develop a model capable of quantifying the level of risk of a future riot occurring in any given location. The authors propose that three variables – the rate of serious acquisitive crime, employment deprivation and the proportion of the local population that is highly skilled or qualified – are each positively correlated with an increased risk of rioting. (If the third factor appears initially counterintuitive, this is because the model focuses on the geographical area rather than the resident population: it is not that those with higher levels of qualification are necessarily more likely to participate in rioting but that areas that have a higher proportion of the resident population with such qualifications are more susceptible to disturbance.) In combination, the three variables produce a model that has a predictive accuracy higher than 90%.

In practical terms, the model would allow local authorities to ascertain the extent to which different locations within their borders may be susceptible to future episodes of disorder. In vulnerable areas, local public services might be well advised to focus resources on addressing the three key variables both in terms of attempting to reduce the level of risk and in planning to deal with disturbances should they occur.

A rather different approach to developing safer communities that are better able to withstand various forms of social hazard is suggested by Lee Quinney. His starting point is a reflection on the impact of serial killings and other horrific crimes on those who have to come to terms with the aftermath of such events, including the “indirect victims” from communities who have their understanding of good and evil challenged by such episodes. But the article’s conclusion, that the concept of “community resilience” might provide a useful framework for developing a strategy to promote community wellbeing in a society that is increasingly dominated by risk aversion, is equally relevant to the development of a shared ownership approach for dealing with the forms of social exclusion that make outbreaks of civil disturbance more likely. The author suggests that the recent publication by the Cabinet Office of a “Strategic National Framework on Community Resilience” represents a good starting point, but that enhancing resilience in real terms is also likely to require a shift in the way that risk is currently understood and strategic measures deployed to avoid it. This would entail an integration of existing resilience networks to encompass broader public health and social care initiatives that aim to promote community wellbeing and social inclusion; further research is needed; and additional resources for projects that hold the promise of making an effective contribution to community resilience required.

One of the by-products of the requirement of a rapid government response to the riots has arguably been a slowing down in the pace of policy development elsewhere, allowing a rare opportunity for reflection on recent approaches to reducing crime and disorder in the UK, as the coalition government prepares to stamp its distinctive mark on the sector. In this context, each of the remaining three articles in this edition offers an assessment of a current area of practice where there is the prospect for change.

In the early part of 2011, the Home Office consulted on amending the framework for dealing with anti-social behaviour (Home Office, 2011). The proposals included the abolition of the anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) and its replacement with two provisions – the criminal behaviour order and the crime prevention injunction – which would in large part replicate the provisions of the ASBO but would also allow courts to impose positive requirements on any person subject to an order in addition to negative prohibitions. At the time of going to press, the government’s response to consultation remains unclear.

Previous academic writings on the ASBO have largely tended towards negative conclusions, particularly those which focus on the experiences of those made subject to the measure. Stuart Kirkby’s article outlines findings of a study investigating the views of practitioners in the field, a group whose perspective he argues have hitherto largely been absent from the debate. The research, conducted in Lancashire, confirms that rates of breach of ASBOs are relatively high, with each order being breached on average 4.8 times. However, while such evidence has previously tended to be presented as indicative of a failure of ASBOs, Kirkby points out that one-third of all orders in his sample were not breached at all. Moreover, practitioners were of the opinion that since ASBOs were always used as a measure of last resort, frequently against persistent offenders, that high levels of breach might in any event be anticipated. The author concludes that, from the standpoint of those tasked with reducing anti-social behaviour, the ASBO has been an effective tool. In this context, practitioners tended to be cynical about the government’s proposed abolition of the order, regarding its replacement as little more than a rebranding exercise. While welcoming the potential facility for courts to impose positive, rehabilitative, interventions alongside prohibitions, they noted too that such amendments would need to be matched with additional resources.

In the current economic climate, additional funding for measures to address anti-social behaviour appears unlikely. However, John Houghton argues that a refinement of multi-agency working might enable a more intelligent configuration of resources that could see continued development of effective services aimed at reducing crime and disorder. In a follow up paper to an earlier article in Safer Communities (Houghton, 2011), he offers an assessment of the partnership approach over the past 30 years, concluding that the balance sheet is largely positive. Notwithstanding continued difficulties in relation to information sharing, he suggests that partnership working facilitates the pooling of resources and a minimisation of duplication, while being responsive to local needs, both pre-requisites of effecting service delivery in a period of fiscal constraint. The concept of neighbourhood management, involving a coordinated response across a range of agencies to a local population, has recently been endorsed by the National Policing Improvement Agency. In Houghton’s view, it represents a viable mechanism for managing cost reductions, providing that the problem of leadership – which has hitherto hindered the development of fully effective partnerships – is resolved.

Issues of funding too will determine the future direction of assessments within the youth justice system. In 2010, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales announced a two year review of the youth justice assessment framework. The current structure is based around Asset, developed some ten years earlier by the University of Oxford, completion of which is required for all children who enter the criminal justice system. The Asset framework – in common with those in the adult system – is reliant on what has become known as the “risk factor prevention paradigm” (Case and Haines, 2009) which purports to identify a range of issues associated with the risk of offending that can be targeted for intervention. Broad continued support for such an approach can be seen in coalition government’s strategy, noted above, to target “troublesome” families.

The Board, for its part, in initiating a full review of Asset, has recognised that the paradigm has been “subject to increasing debate in academic literature while at the same time there is a growing emphasis on the development of theory and practice models based around desistance” (Teli, 2010, p. 3). Implementation of a revised framework however is subject to a business case for funding being accepted by the Ministry of Justice, and at the time of writing, the outcome is unknown. Against this background, Sean Creaney’s conceptual critique of the use of the risk factor paradigm, particularly as it impacts on girls is timely. Building on academic criticisms of the whole approach, he argues that actuarial assessment and intervention is particularly inappropriate for girls because it conflates welfare need with “criminogenic” risk, criminalising a growing number of young women who pose minimal risk to the public in real terms.

Whether an amended assessment framework would address such criticism remains to be seen but we would welcome further contributions to the debate on gender and justice and risk led approaches to crime reduction.

Tim Bateman, Chris Fox