1 Responsibility, Rhetoric and Reality: Practitioners ’ Views on Their Responsibility for Crime and Disorder in the Community Safety Partnerships

This paper is concerned with some of the contradictions inherent in the community safety partnerships set up as a result of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. The paper draws upon research in one of three case studies, which for the purposes of anonymity, has been called Elmside. The paper focuses on David Garland’s concept of ‘responsibilisation ’ and is particularly concerned with the gulf that exists between rhetoric and reality- between who should be and is responsible for crime and disorder in Elmside. This paper firstly explores the theoretical literature concerning the political context of the partnerships, as well as the methods employed in the research. It then explores a number of tensions concerning the responsibility for crime and disorder: the blurring of boundaries between agencies within the partnership and between the partnership and local people, the balancing or otherwise of priorities emanating from central government, local citizens and practitioners. The paper concludes that central government is likely to take a dominant role in determining the community safety agenda, at the local level, which suggests Garland (2001) is correct about ‘responsibilisation’, at the level of rhetoric rather than reality