Suchergebnisse

This article argues that the police accountability and governance reforms introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government (2010–2015) have created a new window for 'international-subnational' crime and justice policy transfer to occur in England and Wales by placing Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) into a local strategic leadership position. It begins by providing an account of the emergence of PCCs and the controversies that have surrounded them, while at the same time maintaining that they are unlikely to be abolished in the foreseeable future. Three reasons as to why PCCs may seek to import policies from abroad are then presented, encompassing ballot-box politicking, hyper-awareness of constituency discontent and a demonstrated willingness to pioneer new crime control initiatives. Subsequent to presenting an international-subnational policy transfer case study - that of London's Compulsory Sobriety Pilot - several analytical and practice-based 'lessons' are outlined pertaining to the process of emulating non-indigenous subnational crime control innovations.

Background and aims: During the past three decades an expansive literature has emerged that is dedicated to analysing the processes of policy transfer. One neglected pathway involves subnational agents emulating crime control innovations that have emerged in subnational jurisdictions of other nations. This paper presents the case of the London Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime's (MOPAC) Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement (AAMR) Pilot to examine the multi-level factors that facilitate and/or constrain international–subnational crime and justice policy transfer. Methods: A qualitative case study design reconstructed the (in)formal events that led to components of the South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Project (USA) being either abandoned or integrated into MOPAC's AAMR Pilot. Evidence is drawn from elite interviews and documentary materials. Results: A series of inter/transnational-, macro-domestic-, meso- and micro-level factors enabled and/or obstructed processes of complete international–subnational policy transfer. Exclusion of domestic violence perpetrators from the London Pilot was fuelled by interest-group hostility and mobilization. Use of alcohol tags rather than breathalysers to monitor compliance was a result of political–economic constraints, concern surrounding intrusion, technological innovation and policy-orientated learning. The decision to omit an 'offender pays' funding mechanism was a consequence of legal incompatibility and civil service reluctance, while 'flash incarceration' for breach was not implemented due to European policy harmonization. Conclusions: The London Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement Pilot was a policy 'synthesis' that combined ideas, goals, vocabulary, principles, technology and practices from the South Dakota model with the existing English and Welsh criminal justice framework. Structural factors and the actions of particular agents limited the extent to which policy transfer occurred.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: During the past three decades an expansive literature has emerged that is dedicated to analysing the processes of policy transfer. One neglected pathway involves subnational agents emulating crime control innovations that have emerged in subnational jurisdictions of other nations. This paper presents the case of the London Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime's (MOPAC) Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement (AAMR) Pilot to examine the multi‐level factors that facilitate and/or constrain international–subnational crime and justice policy transfer. METHODS: A qualitative case study design reconstructed the (in)formal events that led to components of the South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Project (USA) being either abandoned or integrated into MOPAC's AAMR Pilot. Evidence is drawn from elite interviews and documentary materials. RESULTS: A series of inter/transnational‐, macro‐domestic‐, meso‐ and micro‐level factors enabled and/or obstructed processes of complete international–subnational policy transfer. Exclusion of domestic violence perpetrators from the London Pilot was fuelled by interest‐group hostility and mobilization. Use of alcohol tags rather than breathalysers to monitor compliance was a result of political–economic constraints, concern surrounding intrusion, technological innovation and policy‐orientated learning. The decision to omit an 'offender pays' funding mechanism was a consequence of legal incompatibility and civil service reluctance, while 'flash incarceration' for breach was not implemented due to European policy harmonization. CONCLUSIONS: The London Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement Pilot was a policy 'synthesis' that combined ideas, goals, vocabulary, principles, technology and practices from the South Dakota model with the existing English and Welsh criminal justice framework. Structural factors and the actions of particular agents limited the extent to which policy transfer occurred.

AbstractWe report findings of a mixed-method evaluation of Local Area Coordination (LAC) in one English Local Authority—an approach that draws on principles of earlier intervention, and place-, asset- and strengths-based activity. We drew on documentary materials, unstructured observation and qualitative interviews. In total, fifty-five qualitative interviews were conducted with professional stakeholders (including Coordinators, statutory agencies and community organisations), and a purposive sample of individuals supported by LAC. Positively, LAC is operating as intended. It is a flexible and agile approach, and one that is less constrained by the expectations and methods associated with traditional service delivery. Reported impacts include: tackling isolation and loneliness; building a positive vision of the future; identifying non-service solutions and being heard. We discuss the ongoing conceptual and methodological challenges to building the LAC evidence base, fostering professional support and understanding, and managing expectations of individuals and communities in furthering development. Resolving these would allow LAC to move beyond being a promising, local and small-scale transformative development for individuals and families. Its future trajectory is enmeshed in the implications of COVID-19 for individuals, families and communities: rising poverty and widening inequality, a fragile Third Sector, and concerns about community fatigue and erosion of trust.

Summary Local Area Coordination is an approach that emerged during the 1980s and 1990s to support individuals with learning disabilities in rural and metropolitan Western Australia. Offering direct family support, signposting and networking it aimed to improve access to services and promote social inclusion. It leveraged community resources and sought broader transformation through local collaborations and service redesign, as underpinned by a strengths-based philosophy. Scotland introduced a similar model of delivery from the early 2000s for learning disability support. Since 2010, a number of English and Welsh Local Authorities have introduced Local Area Coordination, and in doing so have expanded its support eligibility criteria to include those considered 'vulnerable' due to age, frailty, disability, mental health issues and housing precariousness. Findings This article provides the first review of developments in England and Wales. Drawing upon published evaluation studies it reflects on Local Area Coordination implementation; reviews the existing evidence base and challenges surrounding data collection; and discusses the competing logic of Local Area Coordination in its aim of supporting individual and community improvement of health outcomes and well-being, and of furthering local government civic engagement and participation. Applications This article points to the challenges and opportunities of implementing such a strength-, assets- and placed-based initiatives within Local Authority social service settings. Embedding Local Area Coordination within Local Authority settings requires skilled political and policy leadership. It balances emerging individual outcomes – health and well-being – with the civic mission (values, control and coproduction), and avoids one being subverted to the other.