Accountability of Crime Prevention - Essay Example

Accountability of crime prevention The aim of the work is to consider the accountability of the crime prevention in the UK from various aspects (democratic, political, legal, and social). It is important to have closer look at the partnerships, which are accountable for crime prevention, their effectiveness, accountability and role, as well as other organizations which take part in the crime prevention system. Main features of accountability It is said that crime and disorder are the key aspects which should be not only closely reviewed, but prevented and reduced. The role of various crime prevention partnerships is to make the life of the citizens safer, and it has become popular for the community partnerships to issue their strategies, thus improving the general accountability and making their activity open, popular and public. The role of the accountability has become increasingly essential with the understanding that the community and the society itself is responsible for the criminal situation, and thus has to take active part in crime reduction. Such partnerships have now acquired forms of the over-national and thus their accountability should be viewed from the different viewpoints. (Hirshfield & Bowers, 2000) On the one hand, legal accountability itself is the notion which presupposes legal obligation of the crime prevention partnerships to give clear accounts on what actions these partnerships undertake to reduce crimes and to improve general criminal situation in the community. This accountability is even more important taking into account that with such partnerships being often supported for the account of the community taxpayers, the legal accountability itself becomes a necessity. Such partnerships are keen to promote legal accountability on the regular basis for the members of the community to see the evidence and the real results of activity of these partnerships. Organizational accountability is the means for the partnership itself to consider the results of its activity. It is mainly the instrument of analyzing the activity and proposing improvements. Accountability in itself provides members of community with the better understandings of the problems they face in criminal situation, as well as make them think abut the community issues. Accountability is the means of forming the views of the public in relation to this or that problem, and thus accountability itself, without any clear distinction of the side from which it is viewed, either political, legal, or social, also provides assistance for better crime prevention and gives community the right to participate in decision-making. Political (democratic) accountability is the crime prevention accountability at the national level, involving political issues. It is important for the following reasons: first of all, it creates the image of the country for its own society as well as at the international arena. Accountability on crime reduction can be used for the promotion of political ideas, as well as this very accountability may become the object of political issue itself. It should be understood, that accountability for crime prevention includes accountability of various state services and organizations; it also presupposes the access of the community to the results of their activity. (Bradley, 1998) Thus, this work will be concentrated around the discussion of the main aspects of the accountability of crime reduction (prevention) in the UK. The organizations which will be taken into account will not only be those which we traditionally connect with the prevention of crimes, as police and fire service, but it will be interesting to look at the non-state organizations as NACRO and their instruments of reducing crimes, as well as the means of accountability to which this organizations keeps in its performance. Legal accountability of crime prevention In speaking about the legal accountability for the crime prevention in the UK, the main accent should be made on the discussion of police service as the guarantee of protection against crimes and guarantee of crime reduction in the country. There has not been made much research as for the role of police in the legal crime prevention accountability, as well as there has not been conducted much research on the public role in this aspect. In 1998, Bradley created the research as for the public legal accountability of police service, and the public expectations and role in this accountability. It is said, that different social groups have different perceptions as for the police accountability in crime reduction. In the accountability arrangements from the legal viewpoint of view, the UK police department has to follow the necessary changes and conditions: 1. Police has to be politically independent in its crime reduction accountability and thus there has been established a clear and definite program. For example, 'a joint Home office and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) project has been established to develop national standards of contact between the police and the public; the Home Office is developing a new Police Performance assessment framework which emphasizes public satisfaction and confidence as a measurement and performance'. (Bradley, 1998) It is even more important to note, that in the legal sense police department has to possess clear mechanisms of accountability, which is one of its direct responsibilities according to the Police Act (1964), which states that police authorities have to 'make sure arrangements are in place to consult the local community about the policing of their area and their priorities; publish annual report and best value performance plan, setting out the policing priorities; report to the community on performance during the previous year and appoint the senior officers to deal with complaints and discipline issues'. (Simmons & Dodd, 2003) From the legal viewpoint, and as it appears that partnerships between police and community in its accountability for the crime reduction are due on the basis of the laws, and are thus legal, the issues of the community being informed about the police activity in crime prevention are still valid. According to the research, the level of the police legal accountability is far from sufficient at present. It is stated, that community mostly gets information from the media, and not directly from police; the sources of the police accountability information are insufficient, and mostly the participants of the research named the TV programs as "Crimewatch" as the source of crime prevention information. A very low percent of the respondents has reported on getting information from the so-called 'yellow boards' which are mostly situated in public places, and which should be made the instruments of carrying the accountability information on the legal basis; this is the evidence of the inefficient work of the police department in carrying our legal accountability. (Bradley, 1998) As a result, it appears that majority of population is not aware of the roles which police as a legal basis for crime prevention should carry, and what police partnerships exist in their area and which of them could be addressed for crime protection and prevention. Thus, it appears that police and partnerships are legally accountable according to the law, but the extent to which they are accountable in reality is far from sufficient. Organizational accountability of the partnerships In discussing organizational accountability of the partnerships, it is of interest to consider the organizational targets, strategies of the partnerships, their aims and objectives. It is stated, that setting aims and objectives is the first step to creating a strategic development plan for any partnership in crime prevention. For example, the strategic plan of the Wales police authority was set as to improve geographical accountability through the following actions: the patrol officers should remain in the neighbourhood or business district where he (she) is assigned, thus this continuity of presence will provide an opportunity for daily, ongoing contact and ensure that officers are aware and informed of the community's current priorities. (Simmons & Dodd, 2003) As a result, the number of the officers patrolling one and the same area, and thus responsible for the crime prevention there, has been increased, and the number of community complaints has been reduced 17%. In the organizational sense, it is also important to see, that police department of the UK has set a target of developing new job descriptions for the police workers, which will ultimately benefit for the public accountability. The accountability standards set for the partnerships had to be made public, as well as recognizable by the law enforcement organizations. The operations of the partnerships in the crime prevention were set in line with the identification of deficiencies and solutions. In the similar sense, the training of the participants of the partnership programs as well as regular audit of the partnership's activities are essential for the high level of performance and thus the quality of the results achieved. However, it is important to see that some of the strategies lack clarity, and as the goals set Political accountability of the crime prevention partnerships It has already been said, that crime prevention partnerships, including police and other similar services in cooperation with the community are accountable on the legal and organizational basis. It has also been said that police itself according to the existing legislation is accountable on the results of its activity. In the political sense, partnerships become politically accountable, when it comes to the decision-making at the state level, as the results of the partnerships' activity, which are made public, are used for adoption and amendment of the crime prevention laws. Simultaneously, accountability of the partnerships becomes a political matter when the notion of crime prevention is discussed in connection with the democratic freedoms in the country and its status as democratic society as a whole. On the other hand, it often happens that police itself becoming the object of political discussion, forgets abut the problems of criminal character, which it is obliged to solve. It is stated, that 10% of the UK partnerships, dealing with the prevention of crimes, are accountable at the organizational level, and are accountable for themselves, but the political side of their activity is not yet clarified. (Home Office, 2000) From the critical point of view, the following can be said: accountability of the partnerships at the political level is necessary, as it often makes state officials pay closer attention to the way their activity is performed, as well as to the means of this performance, with the ultimate decision-making. On the other hand, it is desirable that the activity of partnerships is not too much politicized as it should be concentrated around solving criminal and not political problems. In the political sense, the main function of the partnerships is their participation in the crime audits, which for the most of them is set as one of the primary targets (Hirshfield & Bowers, 2000), the impact on the central and local governments is not very vivid, but could e increased through the closer cooperation of all partnerships at the political level. Accountability of the contributing agencies It is stated by Robinson et al (1998) in his study of the Northern and Yorkshire NHS Regional office, that the general awareness of the impact of crimes on public health exists, but 'the concerns and initiatives seem not to be supported by much information research and policy'. Violence still remains one of the key health concerns not only in the UK, but in Europe as well. Health service itself is accountable through the information systems it uses for carrying information to the public - these are NHS, Social services and other voluntary agencies, deal with risk factors of health in relation to the crime, as well as deal directly with perpetrators. Other agencies, which take active part in crime prevention, as fire service, for example, have become crime prevention accountable only recently, and it is interesting to note, that not a single report has yet been published on the fire service accountability, as well as local governments provide community with insufficient information on their role in crime prevention. Accountability of NACRO in crime prevention NACRO is one of the non-government agencies, which was created with the strict aim of crime prevention and for now appears to be one of the highly accountable out of all other similar partnerships. This accountability is mainly displayed through the wide amount of the crime prevention information, which is presented through the NACRO sources. It is also vivid through the direct actions NACRO undertakes to prevent and reduce crimes. One of the principal instruments of NACRO activity designed so far is the CCTV (Closed Circuit Television), which is a 'crime prevention measure', and the level of coverage by which is believed to be 'cure-all'. (Fox & Warburton, 1999) The researches suggest, that CCTV is the most effective in preventing and reducing property crimes. It is stated, that in the London Underground Stations CCTV reduced less complex and small robberies; in the CCTV-covered area in Burley the significant reduction of drug offences and violence has been noticed; Ilford has witnessed considerable theft and personal offence reduction. (Welsh & Farrington, 2004) These facts themselves appear not only the proofs of the high level accountability of NACRO in crime prevention, but its active striving for this accountability. Community itself, understanding the importance of crime prevention, appears to be more effective in its accountability, than state and local legal partnerships. Accountability of this organization at all levels has increased due to the following reasons: first, public actively supports the activity and use of CCTV; second, there is political need for the government to create the picture of active crime prevention, this is why such organizations as NACRO have become actively supported and accountable; but the same CCTV system has decreased the level of crimes only five percent in comparison to the three quarters of the Home Office Crime Prevention budget spent at its use. This is why accountability of the service first of all, reveals negative sides of its activity, and second, shows, that at times accountability is only used for political motives. 'Rowing and steering' Osborne and Gaebler in their work (1992) speak about policy decisions (steering), service delivery (rowing) and the difference between these two notions. Though their context is more governmental, this metaphor can also be used in the present research. It is said, that 'steering organizations have to find the best methods to achieve their goals; rowing organizations tend to defend their methods at all costs'. In relation to the crime prevention accountability in the UK, one comes to the conclusion, that partnerships dealing with crime reduction at present, are still at the 'steering' stage, when they already have rather definite goals to achieve, but don't have clear vision of how to achieve these goals. The attempts of improving the general accountability have not yet led to better results in crime situation in the country, though different agencies try to contribute into crime prevention through various aspects of their activity. Conclusion It is agreed, that crime prevention itself is a complex process and requires much skill and ability to cope with the problems. It is not yet understood that accountability in crime prevention is one of the important steps to the improvement of governance in crime prevention. Through the researches conducted, it has been seen, that the level of accountability of the crime prevention partnerships is not sufficient to make the public aware of the processes, which take place within them and influence the level of crimes. the vision of the partnerships by the public is not correct, which is the evidence, that though partnerships are accountable on the legal, organizational and political basis, this accountability should be more strategically designed and be conducted through clearer steps. The mostly 'steering' style of crime prevention should be gradually changed into 'rowing', when the method used for crime prevention will only need to be protected and not changed. References Bradley, R 1998, Public expectations and perceptions of policing, London: Home Office Police Research Series Paper 96. Fox, C & Warburton, F 1999, Crime and disorder auditing, NACRO Hirshfield, A & Bowers, K 2000, Targeting resources for crime prevention, in Ballyntine, Pease and McLaren Secure foundations: Key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety, IPPR Home Office 2000, A review of audits and strategies produced by crime and disorder partnerships in 1999, Home Office. Osborne, D & Gaebler T 1992, Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector from schoolhouse to statehouse, City Hall to Pentagon, Addison Wesley Patnter, K & Tilley, N 1999, Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention, Criminal Justice Press Robinson, F, Keithley, J & Childs, S 1998, Exploring the impacts of crime on health and health services: a feasibility study, Durham: University of Durham. Simmons, J & Dodd, T 2003, Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003, London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/03. Welsh, BC and Farrington, DP, 2004, Crime prevention and Closed Circuit television: a systematic review, Home Office. Read More