For all the talk about crime partnerships and wider police families, the authorities appear to have difficulty getting their heads around the implications of partnerships.
Police are inspected by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary; and local authorities are inspected by the Audit Commission; but who inspects crime and disorder partnerships? To ensure that they are doing their job, or merely to see that they are not re-inventing the wheel? A Government consultation document, titled Establishing an inspectorate for Justice and Community Safety, suggests a single inspectorate for the criminal justice system – replacing, for instance, HMIC. Might private security fall under its umbrella, where Security is contracted by police or other public authorities? It appears not.
Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 councils and police have, by law, had to work in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), or Community Safety Partnerships in Wales. As the name suggests, the partnerships include others with an interest in fighting crime – such as businesses. Each partnership must for example draw up a crime audit, to set priorities. Where private security has gone on board, partnerships have been an opportunity to make crime against business a higher policing priority, or to get things done – warden patrols, for instance.
The consultation document says: “Too often, victims and the communities from which they have come have felt ignored in the fight against crime and excluded from the justice process. Agencies must respond rapidly and effectively to the crime and disorder that affects the community. Notable innovations include the use of anti-social behaviour orders, multi agency public protection arrangements, restorative justice programmes and young offender panels. The Justice and Community Safety Inspectorate must be able to lead on inspections to ensure that these initiatives are improving services.” Yet according to the document earlier: “It is likely to remain the case the CDRPs will not be inspected separately, as this would increase inspection burden”.
The document presses the right buttons, speaking of being joined-up (inspecting HM Immigration Service and coroners for the first time, for instance), supporting police reform, and providing value for money. In a foreword, Baroness Scotland says: “… we are ambitious for the inspection regime to support the changing criminal justice system.” But how to resolve the philosophical difference between private security and public service – that private security enters into policing-style (or private prisons or electronic tagging) contracts for a profit? while public services are part of the state, and inspected? Nor does the consultation document mention CCTV. Despite the Home Office research (reported last issue) that lambasted public space CCTV for not having an impact on crime, there seems no political will to actually inspect council or police CCTV to help it in its criminal justice work.
After the consultation, the Government says it will publish final proposals in 2005. If you want to have your say during this consultation, write before June 15 to Criminal Justice System Inspection Policy Unit Ground Floor, Fry; 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF or e-mail [email protected]
