The role of trust and communication in effective crime prevention partnerships

1
The role of trust and communication in effective
crime prevention partnerships

• Peter Homel
• Presentation to the Partnerships in Crime
  Prevention Partnerships seminar
• University of Western Sydney
• 22 April 2008

2
Some common features of good crime prevention

• Collaborative multi-agency based action
• whole of government/community (Australia)
• networked government (USA)
• joined-up government (UK)
• Problem oriented
• e.g. Problem Oriented Policing (POP) etc.
• Built on the use of multiple interventions to
  address linked problems
• Evidence-based (or at least evidence informed)
• Outcome focused
• i.e. measures performance and effectiveness
• Centrally developed and driven but locally
  delivered
• Built on partnership and shared outcomes
• Focused on principles of inclusiveness and
  participation

3
Some practical issues for partnership working

• Agreement on goals and objectives
• Agreeing on budget and staff management processes
• New arrangements for shared responsibilities
  (outcomes) and tasks (service delivery)
• Revised client-service provider arrangements
  focusing on outcomes not activities
• Addressing integrated planning and triple bottom
  line (i.e. economic, environmental and social
  impacts)
• Innovative community engagement and joint
  management arrangements
• Data management issues
• Developing meaningful joint performance measures
  and systems
• Source IPAA 2002

4
What public sector management consultants say
partnerships need

• Commitment
• Equity
• Trust
• Mutual goals/objectives
• Collaboration over implementation
• Continuous evaluation
• Timely communication and responsiveness
• Bennington and Cummane (1999)

5
What another one says

• Equality in decision making
• Joint accountability
• Mutual trust and respect
• Jointly agreed purposes and values
• Brinkerhoff (2002)

6
What crime prevention experience says

• A clear mission or purpose
• Solid level of trust
• Leadership
• Clear communication and accountability lines
• Management focused on strategic as well as
  operational (i.e. project) outcomes
• Relatively small and business like partnership
  structures
• Adequate expert input
• Continuity in partnership membership and
  documentation
• Support for staff involvement with partnership
• Gilling (2005)

7
Partnership involves power sharing

• Partners are not always equal
• So the key is

8
An example of an effective collaborative
partnership The Boston Gun Project

• Problem
• High rates of gun violence among youth gangs
• Response
• Research informed collaborative multi-agency
  partnership focused on reducing homicides ahead
  of other crimes
• Strategies
• Problem Oriented Policing
• Specific deterrence
• Communicating the sanction
• Result
• Rapid and significant decline in youth homicides

9
Replicating Boston the RAND experience in Los
Angeles

• the intervention was not implemented as
  designed, and it never developed dynamically or
  in response to changing needs... the project did
  not succeed in getting working group
  participants, who referred to it as the RAND
  study or the RAND project, to view it as their
  own and seek to continue it. No single agency
  emerged to take charge of the project and carry
  it forward, perhaps because of limited resources
  for the work.
• Tita et al., 2003 12

10
An example of a successful local crime prevention
partnership

• The Pathways to Prevention project
• A developmental prevention project in Brisbane
  children in a disadvantaged community
• Ross Homel et al 2006.
• The Pathways to Prevention project doing
  developmental prevention in a disadvantaged
  community. Trends and Issues No. 323 Australian
  Institute of Criminology

11
The Pathways to Prevention project

• Began in Brisbane Qld in 2001
• Aims to prevent anti-social behaviour among
  children as they progress into adolescence
• Targets 4-6 year old children in transition to
  school
• Focuses on enhancing communication and social
  skills, empowering families, schools and
  communities to provide supporting environments
• Early results proving very positive

12
How the Pathways project works

• Creating positive individual developmental
  pathways is as important as enabling positive
  social pathways or social access
• Youth pathways are characterised by non-linearity
  and complex patterns of transition
• The need for flexibility and close engagement
  with children, families, wider community and key
  agencies
• Communities cant do it all by themselves
• Listen to and learn from young peoples
  experiences of developmental pathways
• Share knowledge and experience to learn lessons
  and decide what to do next

13
The partners

• Griffith University researchers and government
  experts
• Mission Australia
• Private philanthropic foundations
• Government agencies (state and federal)
• Local community representatives
• Local schools and service providers (government
  and non-government

14
Key partnership management structures

• Project reference group
• Mission Australia
• Qld Government agencies
• Griffith University
• Key local service provider
• Community representatives
• Development and evaluation group
• Griffith University
• Government experts
• Key local service provider

15
How Pathways was managed in practice

• There was no overall project manager. No one
  person could make decisions for all parts of the
  project, since at its heart it was a partnership
  between Mission Australia and Griffith University
  that was based on trust
• Homel et al (2006)

16
What makes partnerships work

• Good will and trust
• A commitment to open and continuous communication
• Thorough planning based on systematic problem
  analysis
• A management structure appropriate to the problem
  and intervention
• Effort
• Maintenance and persistence
• A commitment to performance management and
  evaluation

17
The role of trust and communication in effective
crime prevention partnerships

• Peter Homel
• 02 9560 2109
• Peter.Homel_at_aic.gov.au
• 22 April 2008