Abstract
Background and aimsDuring 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
Highlights
The claim that crime control policies ‘travel’ is commonplace, but one that is rarely supported by empirical evidence
Despite assertions that a plethora of foreign innovations have been borrowed by policymakers in the United Kingdom, few studies have been conducted that directly examine the occurrence and realities of crime and justice policy transfer, defined here as: A process in which knowledge about crime and justice institutions, policies or delivery systems in one jurisdiction is used in the development of crime and justice institutions, policies or delivery systems in another jurisdiction in a different country
The police accountability and governance reforms introduced by the UK Coalition Government (2010–15) have ostensibly created a new opportunity structure for crime and justice policy transfer to occur by placing directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) into a subnational strategic leadership position
Summary
The claim that crime control policies ‘travel’ is commonplace, but one that is rarely supported by empirical evidence. Hunches pertaining to the overseas origins of policy initiatives such as drug courts, mandatory drug testing for arrestees, restorative justice, day fines, problem-orientated policing, civil gang injunctions, boot camps, Neighbourhood Watch, Ugly Mugs and street wardens generally prevail Those studies that have been published have primarily focused on the national level, and explore associations and similarities between crime control policy in the United. In analysing the case of the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime’s (MOPAC) Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement (AAMR) Pilot, this paper takes steps to address one such question: what factors facilitate and/or constrain the adoption and implementation of an overseas subnational crime and justice innovation in the United Kingdom? 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
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
