Introduction

The phrase ‘multiagency policing’ emerged, ostensibly describing a new approach to policing, in the early 1980s. To some extent it reflected a development from the renewed (post-Scarman, 1981) enthusiasm for ‘community policing’ and a greater recognition of the need for more local consultation over policing priorities. However, despite emerging as one among a number of processes ‘opening-up’ policing and rendering police decision making rather more visible than in the past, multiagency policing never settled entirely comfortably alongside simple notions of greater local accountability.

Multi- or interagency policing was specifically promoted by a Home Office publication in 1990, Partnership in crime prevention (Home Office, 1990), and then endorsed in the paradigmatic Morgan Report of 1991 (Home Office, 1991). However, ‘multiagency policing’ always implied something more than just partnership or joint working and could have some potentially far-reaching implications. In this article the phrases ‘multiagency’ or ‘interagency’ policing are used fairly interchangeably as referring to the same generic forms of project management. Equally the term ‘partnership’ policing is sometimes referred to – and preferred – by some commentators. While there may be differences of interpretation and emphasis implied by these different phrases – which can sometimes be important – in this article we are concerned with a number of more generic issues.

This paper reflects our research into how participants in multiagency policing schemes viewed the initiatives. Interagency working is a political process in which agencies (in this case, largely the police) pursue their own interests together with those of the wider ‘community’. Often, multiagency working appears to be about creating ‘community interests’ (to which different agencies need to respond), or legitimating certain conceptions of ‘community interests’ that may or may not coincide with police aims and priorities. The police enter schemes with multiple objectives, sharing (or off-loading) problems, acquiring additional resources, obtaining support, and for better management of demand for their services. Examples in this paper suggest multiagency initiatives involve calling in stakeholders and service representatives (the ‘usual suspects’) to achieve policing objectives (‘help the police with their enquiries’).

What can be involved?

Multiagency policing implies the police are no more responsible for crime problems than the fire brigade are for fires. While the police respond to crime, this may not be the defining ‘service’ response. A profound rethink about crime prevention and management has occurred over recent years.