CDRP Reform

Crime and Disorder Partnerships

The Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership reform programme comes almost a decade after seminal legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998) created these innovative partnerships in England and Wales. They were created to reduce crime and anti social behaviour in local areas through the application of an agreed partnership strategy.

They have been established by 'responsible authorities'1 which have a statutory duty to work with other local agencies and organisations to develop and implement strategies to tackle crime and disorder including anti-social and other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment as well as the misuse of drugs in their area.

There are 349 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP's) in England and 22 Community Safety Partnerships (CSP's) in Wales. They work with varying degrees of success and range from loosely based confederations which encourage the development of projects to tackle crime and disorder to well financed and tightly focused management boards who direct teams to deliver specific targeted outputs.

Reinforcing Crime and Disorder Reduction Governance & Effective Practice

Responsible authorities are under a statutory duty2 to ensure that the key agencies come together to work in partnership in a CDRP/CSP in co-operation with probation boards, parish councils, NHS Trusts , NHS Foundation Trusts, Proprietors of independent schools and governing bodies of an institution within the further education sector and to work closely with Drug Action Teams in two tier local authority areas and have developed integrated working arrangements in unitary authority areas.

They are also expected to invite a range of local private, voluntary, other public and community groups including the public to become involved in the development of their work. 

The governance of crime and disorder reduction partnership work has belonged with the local Crime and Disorder Partnerships (CDRP's) since the enactment of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Nevertheless, police and other partner authorities have continued to carry out their individual duties to maintain enforcement activities of work with those who are involved with the processes of criminal justice; sometimes linked to the CDRP activity but also separate from it.

The Reform Programme 

The CDRP reforms contained in the Police and Justice Act 2006 (PJA 2006) have comprehensively revised the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The new Act places a duty on responsible authorities - now also including the Fire Service, Probation Service, Health Service, local Police Authority and a representative of Registered Social Landlords (Housing Associations) - to share evidence based data to support CDRPs. 

The PJA 2006 and related documents, are intended to break down that silo working and to install a more consistent 'joined-up' approach (revision of Section 17, scrutiny functions and more general minimum standards.   The specific responsibilities for the development of the Strategic Assessment and its implementation are described in more detail in the minimum standards page. However, because of the origin of the reform - that is that it has originated within central government with consultation on improving effectiveness - the more complex socio-legal concerns expressed by criminologist such as Professor Gordon Hughes - see Crime Prevention, Community Safety, and Crime and Disorder Reduction- have yet to be addressed directly.

As the architecture of the reform programme is gradually unveiled it may well appear that the form it takes is prescriptive - definitely it could not be more vague than the dear old Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Home Office guidance for Crime and Disorder Partnerships, Delivering Safer Communities: A guide to effective partnership work,supports the introduction of Minimum Standards. 

Critical Analysis of Crime and Disorder Reduction Governance and Service Delivery

The political importance of crime and disorder control and the succeeding development of Green and White Papers and the enactment of statutes have led to rapid innovation in this area. The expansion of community safety and allied services have outstripped the initial basic structures established to manage the strategic and tactical devlopment and operation of these services.

Community safety teams, anti social behaviour reduction services, police and community support officers, neighbourhood policing teams - have all been created post 1998 but, to a large extent, their governance has been dependent upon ad hoc arrangments and local custom and practice. The level of resources now dedicated to community safety work and the importance to the key organisations and institutions, that this work has, demands that there is consistent and stable management and practice to avoid gross regional and local variation.

To a great extent there has been a decade of limited external critical analysis as the key scrutineers (HMIC, NAO/Home Affairs Committee, the Audit Commission and criminologist have either ignored the area or have concentrated on specific areas - police delivery of targets, CCTV effectiveness, motor vehicle crime reduction, the delivery of the govezrnment crime reduction programme or crime and disorder reductions contribution to quality of life). There have been some notable exceptions such as the HMIC joint thematic inspection Calling Time on Crime but the main thrust of concern to improve delivery, in various ways, has either come from professional groups or from the Home Office.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Home>>